Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 1938

Vol. 22 No. 7

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) (No. 2) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

This Bill, as Senators are aware, is one of a formal type introduced periodically for the purpose of securing statutory confirmation for orders made under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1932. Orders made under that Act cease to have statutory effect unless confirmed by legislation within a period of eight months. Two or three of these Bills are produced, therefore, at various times of the year for the purpose of confirming the orders outstanding on the date of their introduction. There is a number of orders scheduled to this Bill, and the earliest date on which any of them would cease to be operative if not confirmed is in March next, but it has always been our policy to produce these Bills for consideration by the Dáil and Seanad as early as possible, subject only to the convenience of the Houses and to the factors affecting the allocation of time. None of the orders confirmed in this Bill is of major importance; some of them are of quite minor importance, and, perhaps, it would serve the purpose of Senators if at this stage I gave a rough indication of their nature. If there is a desire to discuss any one of them in greater detail, it could, perhaps, be best done in Committee. Orders Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were made for the purpose of exempting from duty certain component parts of articles which previously were made subject to duty, because of definition, but were admitted free under licence. It has been found practicable to follow the definition in each case, so that component parts will be admitted free of duty and without restriction. Reference No. 5 is of a somewhat similar nature. It varies the nature of the licence duty, so as to permit the issue of a licence, not merely to a manufacturer but also to a wholesaler in cotton blanketing. No. 6 reduces the duty on dry and powdered milk. Reference Nos. 7 and 8 impose the minimum duties to be effective on goods to which the order relates. Reference No. 9 relates to the order which imposed a new duty on golf balls, the manufacture of which is about to be undertaken here. Reference No. 10 is a formal order, revoking the duty which hitherto applied to Irish-made woollen cloth exported under bounty. With the termination of the bounty the necessity for that particular duty ceased. Reference Nos. 11 and 12 effect variations in the duty previously operative upon the articles mentioned, certain articles of asbestos, rope, cord and twine. Reference No. 13 imposes a new duty on sheets of ebonite made out of artificial horn, the manufacture of which is to be undertaken in the South of Ireland. Reference No. 14 effects no change in the duty, except to insert a licensing provision which will permit parts of wireless telegraphy apparatus to be imported free of duty. Reference No. 15 effected a new duty, by extending the existing duty on articles made from tin, tin plate or tinned plate. Reference No. 16 provides for the remission of duty on certain component parts of boots and shoes hitherto dutiable which are not manufactured here. Reference No. 17 postponed the operation of the duty upon steel, which would have become operative on the 1st November until the 1st April. Reference No. 18 imposed a new duty on plates and sheets bearing advertisements.

Senators will notice that none of these matters is of great importance. Some new duties may have to be considered, but in respect of most the orders arise out of variations in circumstances which had to be adjusted when they arose.

Professor Johnston

I always enjoy these debates in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce opens the proceedings, but I feel that the length of his speech to-day was quite out of all proportion to the extreme importance of the issues which are implied in the Bill we are asked to confirm. I object absolutely to the whole method and principle of legislation of this kind. May I read to the House the powers which are taken under the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Act, 1932:—

... the Government may, if and whenever they think proper, do by order all or any of certain things and among others vary, in any manner or respect whatsoever, in regard to goods imported into Ireland on or after a specified day any Customs duty in force at the passing of the said Act or imposed by any Act passed or order made after the passing of the said Act or any qualification, limitation, drawback, allowance, exemption, or preferential rate in force at the date of such order in relation to any such duty.

If the Government has power to do all that sort of thing, what is there left for the Oireachtas to do? It is mere humbug to come before this or the other House, and to pretend that we have any real power to deal with the legislation in all the miscellaneous orders which are made and withdrawn under the Act. Whatever excuse there was at the time the Act was first enacted, there was no excuse whatever for it remaining on the Statute Book the day after the economic war came to an end. I consider that the whole economic policy which has been adopted, using the powers contained in that Act, involves far too much interference with the details of our economic life, as it introduces into our economic life principles which are quite incompatible with the freedom of a democratically governed State. I see that one of the hundreds of orders—the only one I had time to study in anything like detail—states:—

"The Revenue Commissioners may, at any time after the importation of such article, require the importer of such article to show to their satisfaction, within such time (not being less than seven days) as they may specify, that such article, since the importation thereof, has been used solely in weaving or knitting goods by means of machinery or has not been used at all or has, as to part thereof, been used solely in such weaving or knitting as aforesaid and has, as to the residue thereof, not been used at all."

In other words, if the material in question was used for tying up parcels it would be liable to pay duty afterwards, although, in the first instance, it was imported free of duty. The State has power to inquire into such elementary details of the business and life of individuals as are referred to in that article. If that article stood alone it would be a matter of trivial importance, but it is typical of thousands of such detailed interferences in ordinary businesses of business men and citizens and I protest against it absolutely.

I consider, under the régime which has been inaugurated under this Act, that so far from private enterprise of the right kind having been stimulated and encouraged, the only kind of private enterprise that is really encouraged is the enterprise of private business men haunting the portals of the Minister's office. All efforts to promote industrial development by interference in the organisation and with conditions affecting particular businesses take away with both hands what is given with one hand. The favour which the Minister endeavours to confer on one industry has reactions which neither he nor far-seeing business men could see on other industries, not to mention the situation of consumers generally. When he gives a favour to one industry he finds, much to his surprise, that he has hurt other industries, and then they must be given similar favours, and the final result is that, so far from any industry being favoured, our whole industrial life has been damnified.

The policy in question has introduced such enormous complexity and unintelligibility into our general economic life that it has made it almost impossible for any ordinary member of the Oireachtas to follow the matter with any understanding. I consider that economic relations are difficult and complex enough without the State, by its policy, adding to those complexities and difficulties. But more important than anything else, by complicating our economic life in that unnecessary way, the Government have made it impossible for the Oireachtas to do its elementary duty and to understand the legislation affecting our economic life, which it is its duty, if it possibly could, to understand before it agrees to its enactment. In that kind of way practically the whole of our economic life and the policies affecting it have been, in fact, withdrawn from the power of the Oireachtas.

The general effect of all this interference is to increase the cost of production, both agricultural and industrial, all round, and to give a position of economic privilege to certain lucky economic interests. It used to be said in the nineteenth century, and said truthfully that our country suffered from an agrarian monopoly operated in the interests of an alien aristocracy. It could be said with equal truth that in the régime inaugurated under this Act the country suffers from industrial privilege operated in interets which are not always necessarily native to the soil.

It is difficult, with the present enormous complexity of our economic policies and relationships, to get exact information with regard to the way in which the thing really works out. Some people are injured by them; other people are benefited by them. The people who have been, in effect, enabled to sit on a gold mine as an indirect consequence of some of these policies are not going to tell us exactly how they are profiting at the expense of the general public. The people who find themselves injured in their interests by certain aspects of these policies are afraid to say anything out loud, because they hope in due course to obtain a favour from the Minister which will, perhaps, put them in a position where they will be sitting on a gold mine, too.

If we want to consider the general effect of the economic policy on our industrial life we should consider what is the position now of our major exporting industries as compared with what it was, say, eight or ten years ago. I consider that industries which are capable of doing an export trade and are still, under whatever difficulties, attempting to do an export trade are, in the very nature of the case, industries which are suited to our circumstances and which are likely to be more efficient than others which must depend exclusively on the home market. According to official figures, we exported in 1930, 3,300,000 square yards of linen piece goods. In 1936 we exported 1,700,000 square yards of linen piece goods. In 1930 we exported 682,000 square yards of woollen tissues, the manufacture of which is one of our most important national industries, and, in 1936, that export was down to 327,000 square yards. Another of our important export industries is beer and stout and, as to that, I find there is a downward trend in the volume of exports and that tendency is likely to be accentuated in the near future.

Mr. Lemass

I am prepared to discuss these matters at any time with the Senator, but I had no intimation that they were likely to be introduced to-day. If the Senator, or any other Senator, wants to discuss these matters, I shall be happy to discuss them on some other occasion.

Professor Johnston

Is it the Minister's contention that I am talking irrelevantly?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that those matters arise directly on this Bill.

Professor Johnston

I suggest that is a matter for the Cathaoirleach.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator may proceed.

Professor Johnston

I think the subject with which I was dealing does relate directly to the general policy, of which this Bill is an outstanding example. My contention is that all our concentration on the effort to develop industries which can only hope to cater for the home market has indirectly injured the position of those other more important industries which used to be able to cater for the export market as well as for the home market. I would not like any Senator to think I am altogether hostile to the ideal of industrial development, but I suggest with all seriousness that if we would further the development of industry we should aim at dibbling industries rather than sowing them broadcast. Every agriculturist knows the difference between dibbling and broadcast sowing. What seems to have happened is that the Minister has pursued a policy of sowing industries broadcast in much the same way as turnips have to be sown and we have reached the position in which these industries have grown up and are choking each other. They should be deliberately thinned, leaving only one industry to grow where perhaps eight or ten were sown, because only one-tenth of them has any hope of attaining adult maturity.

The economic health of the community is sound when prices and incomes are so related to one another, in the economy as a whole, that production can continue to expand, and when everything produced is in due course consumed. In general, I am an advocate of laissez faire in economic matters, but I agree that there are times when the State might usefully interfere, but only in order to secure the more complete consumption of things which it is socially desirable should continue to be produced in any case. I think every effort made by the State to remove obstacles from the channels of commerce, obstacles which interrupt and delay the circulation of goods—all such efforts by the State which tend to improve and increase consumption are to be applauded. If all else fails, and if there is reason to think that the poorer sections of the community are not able to consume to an extent which is desirable for social reasons, there are occasionally times when the State is justified in redistributing the national income in the interests of the poorer classes, so as to increase their consumption.

But the efforts of the Minister in restricting commerce—for, after all, these regulations have an effect primarily in restricting commerce —are indirectly efforts which result in the restriction of consumption. Whenever you put restrictions or obstacles in the way of the ready movement of goods along the different stages of production from producer to consumer, you load these goods with increasing charges at every stage in their distribution, and consumers, in the final result, having to pay these higher charges, find themselves restricted in consumption because of the relationship between the prices they must pay and the incomes they receive. The Minister may say that while he has frequently, in the course of his public duty, found it necessary to restrict consumption of imported goods, nevertheless nothing could be further from his desire than that he should restrict in any way the consumption of goods produced at home.

One effect of the industrial policy which has disturbed the price relationships between industrial and agricultural goods is that it was found necessary artifically to raise the price of certain agricultural products in order to restore something approximating to a normal relationship to non-agricultural prices. One of the policies for such raising of certain agricultural prices has been the policy of paying bounties on the export of butter and eggs. The effect of such bounties in such a case is to pay the agricultural producer a premium for not selling his goods in the home market and the effect is to reduce the consumption in the home market of our own agricultural produce below the level it would otherwise be if such goods were allowed to move freely to the market which was unaffected by any consideration of bounties. So that, indirectly, the policy of restricting the import and consumption of foreign goods has led inevitably to another policy of restricting the consumption in the home market even of our own agricultural goods. Unintentionally, but effectively, the policy of the Minister has, I think, helped to create a kind of new plutocracy of economic privilege and has redistributed the national income in a sense favourable to the industrial interests which managed to profit by it. In that particular aspect of his policy the Minister has been catholic in the widest and non-theological sense of the term, and I freely and gratefully admit that many people, many of my co-religionists, have been too fortunate in sharing the largesse which was available for distribution when they profited by the policies of the Minister. But the policy, whether it profits Christian or Jew or Gentile, is all wrong and contrary to sound economic principles.

Another aspect of the matter might be mentioned and it is this—in the post-war period there were certain general causes in operation tending to dislocate the price and income relationship, especially between agricultural prices and incomes and non-agricultural prices and incomes. During the war, as we all know, all prices rose to a considerable height and, by degrees, wages, in transport and distribution for example, were adjusted to correspond to the cost of living as it was in 1920. In due course, there was a downward movement in general prices but the incomes associated with transport and distributive services, other than the incomes of railway shareholders, were not adjusted downwards in the same degree as, in the event, it was found necessary that agricultural incomes should be adjusted downwards. So that, for one reason or another, there was a tendency in the post-war decade for the price relationship between agriculture and industry to alter in a sense unfavourable to agriculture. In my view, the natural balance between agriculture and industry should be such that the real wages of agricultural labour should bear a close correspondence to the real wages of unskilled labour in the towns. In fact, in terms of money, the wages of unskilled labour in the towns should be slightly higher than the wages of agricultural labour and, in that case, there would be a natural and, I think, a healthy tendency towards a gradual drift of surplus agricultural labour from agricultural into urban employment. But, in actual fact, the wages of our urban labour are now out of all relation to agricultural wages. There is hardly any wage in urban employment for unskilled labour below £2 a week, whereas, as we all know, agricultural wages are more in the region of 25/- a week, if so much. So that, so far as economic inducements are concerned, there would be a tendency for hundreds of thousands of agricultural producers to flock into urban industry, to obtain the higher real wage there paid, if only it was a physical or economic possibility to absorb such a large number of ex-agricultural labour. That being the situation, the Minister's industrial policy, in so far as it has tended to maintain and increase non-agricultural prices and incomes, has tended to aggravate a disorder in our economic structure and in our price relationship which was already acute even before the Minister inaugurated this policy. That agricultural prices are only at about pre-war level, whereas the cost of living and the cost of production for agricultural producers are at least 170 per cent. of pre-war, is, I think, the most important fact in the whole of our present economic situation.

In a normal economic relationship, our export industries, being, in the very nature of the case, our most efficient industries, the ones we are best fitted to exploit and develop, should govern the remuneration obtainable by the factors of production employed in other industries which, in the nature of the case, must cater for the home market, but at present the remuneration of the factors of production employed in non-agricultural industry bears no relation whatever to the remuneration which it is possible for the various factors of production in agriculture to obtain.

Mr. Kelly

A Chathaoirligh, with all due respect to Senator Professor Johnston, I think he is travelling over the whole industrial field and not speaking to the matter before the House at all.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator seems to be unduly widening the scope of the debate on this Bill.

Professor Johnston

I do not desire to traverse every branch of our economic life but there are about 18 Bills here to discuss, hardly one of which but raises some economic point to which, I submit, my remarks are appropriate.

Mr. Baxter

I submit, too, with all respect to the Chair, that what the Minister is asking the House to do to-day is in effect in particular instances to raise taxation, in other instances to lower taxation and, in other instances, to give licences.

Mr. Lemass

In so far as the Senator has referred to me, I am asking the House to pass a Bill confirming orders made under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act.

Mr. Baxter

You are asking us to confirm the raising of taxation and the lowering of taxation, and so we are asked to do something which in effect we do in a Finance Bill and, I submit, we are thereby entitled to discuss the policy just as we would in a Finance Bill.

Cathaoirleach

If the Senator confined his criticism to the procedure under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act under which the orders in the Schedule are made it will be quite in order and relevant and will not unduly widen the field of discussion. It is the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am giving him every latitude, but I would ask him in continuing to be mindful of the statement of the Minister and not unduly widen the scope of discussion.

Professor Johnston

I would ask you to pull me up should I travel beyond the field of what is strictly relevant, and I will endeavour to confine my remarks to what is relevant. May I confess that instead of the policy which is exemplified in this Bill I personally would like to see a policy of concentrating on promoting a dozen or perhaps a score of really important new industries and abandoning completely the effort to promote hundreds of small-scale industries which can never achieve any real importance and the effort to promote which is only complicating our economic life. I should like to see a tariff fixed once for all with a prospect of continuity and fixity which would secure the future of certain industries chosen by a disinterested expert council and all other tariffs completely eliminated. The Minister should remember that the effect of the tariff medicine becomes proportionately less and less the more he applies it to new and fresh industries. The more industries are protected by tariff the less is the advantage of such protection, and when you have come along the whole scale the effect of that protection for good may be completely negatived by the indirect effects for evil of such policies on the whole economic situation. It follows conversely that if you reverse the policy and if you allow the weakling industries to die, deliberately to die, your action in so doing will strengthen the constitutions of the other industries which somehow manage to survive. In fact, it may be necessary, to secure the life of the ones which are worth preserving, that you should give the weakling industries every opportunity to die, and the best and simplest method of securing their early demise is to remove all artificial protection and leave them to the healthy open air of free competition. As things are, we cannot keep all our new industries alive by artificial respiration and we will only strangle our economic life as a whole if we do not abandon the futile attempt.

As regards the policy of which this Bill is an example, I would urge the Minister to abandon these usurped powers of legislation and taxation and give them back to the Oireachtas where they belong, and tell business in general to mind its own business instead of haunting the portals of the Minister's office. There are enough uncertain factors in business to which business men have to adjust themselves without the additional uncertainty arising from the fact of their whole attention being devoted to attempting to forecast how the ministerial cat will jump. Therefore, I would eliminate that uncertain animal entirely from the horizon of our business life as far as may be. I do not know, Sir, whether you will rule me out of order or not, but what I have just been saying seems to have an important bearing on the problem of reunion, which is very close to the heart of many of us.

Cathaoirleach

I suggest that you should leave that matter over for the present. There will be an opportunity of a full-dress debate in the near future on that matter.

Professor Johnston

Before I sit down, may I say that I did, in another place, advocate reunion for non-economic reasons, but I was unable then—in fact, I did not attempt—to mention a single economic argument in favour of it. In conclusion, may I suggest that if the Minister and his Government will concentrate on an economic policy of the kind implied in the Report of the Banking Commission, then I think it will be possible for me to advocate reunion for economic, as well as non-economic reasons. At present, I can think of no economic argument in favour of it.

Mr. McEllin

I was rather amazed to hear Senator Johnston found his arguments on the principles which he mentioned. Coming from him, and the institution he represents, it was certainly surprising. It seems to me that he must be living in a fool's paradise if he believes that, under modern conditions, this country could pursue the policy of free trade which he has advocated as the only sound economic principle on which we could work. Every country in the world to-day has found it necessary for its economic salvation to set up a tariff wall against imports. If we look at conditions in our country, and examine, as Senator Johnston suggested, our best industries which have an export trade, we shall realise that certainly most of the products of our agricultural industry could hardly survive if we had free trade. I could give you one example, or several examples if you wish. Take the dairying industry. It is protected to-day, and, if it were not protected, the prices ruling would be half what they are. The same can be said in relation to the bacon trade and the egg industry. In fact, that applies to practically all phases of the agricultural industry to-day. Every single one of these items can be imported more cheaply than we can produce them. I shall not say that they can be imported at an economic price, but they can be certainly imported at a price lower than that at which our farmers can produce them. If we were to accept the general principles which Senator Johnston advocates, namely, to sell in the dearest market and to buy in the cheapest market, and if we were to buy every form of agricultural produce in the cheapest market, we could go out of production altogether in the agricultural industry. That being so, it seems to me that the only policy that any Government in this country under existing conditions can pursue is a policy of protecting what is fundamental to our own basic industries.

For generations England boasted of the fact that it was a great free trade country, and that it meant to maintain a policy of free trade. The English people boasted of the fact that they were the greatest nation of shopkeepers in the world. But even that great free trade nation within the last decade had to drop completely that policy for a policy of protection, and had to preserve the home market for her own manufacturers. When you see a country like that, with old established industries, having generations of experience behind them, finding it necessary to go in for a policy of protection, surely to goodness a country such as ours, which is only in its infancy as regards the development of its economic resources, must give adequate protection to native industries during their early growth. On the other hand, this country, I believe, has no future in front of it, if it is to depend solely on agricultural production. Whatever misgivings the people may have in this country with regard to protection, or whatever the future may hold with regard to agreements or anything else, I personally am quite satisfied that our only hope of success lies in an even more intensified policy of protection and the development of every single resource at home to provide our people with any article that they may require.

I believe that we should go in more strongly for that. If we had confidence enough in ourselves to go 100 per cent. on that policy we can easily see what could be achieved. Within the last five years we have seen a nation that had an unemployed population of over 5,000,000. To-day it has not 50,000 unemployed. I do not say that we here should employ the methods that were adopted there, but I do say that we should have confidence enough in ourselves to go all out on a policy of providing all our own requirements. The nation that I have referred to adopted that policy and succeeded with it, and I believe that if we had more confidence in ourselves we could succeed too. In the matter of industrial production we have learned a lot in the last five years, and what I maintain is that as we gain in experience our costs of production will become less. With that possibility before us, there is no doubt whatever but that a number of our industries which some people are trying to disparage to-day will become even more successful than some of those which are and have been doing an export trade. I believe that when we have greater experience we will reach that position. All over the world emigrants from this country have reached the top of the ladder in every sphere of industrial life in the countries they have gone to. Our young people to-day are gaining experience in industrial methods. They have five years' experience behind them now, and it is my belief that the new methods which are being employed in industry here, and the enhanced skill of our workers, will in time rejuvenate the whole outlook of industry in this country. Our people have helped to do that in America and in the other countries they have gone to, and I believe that the same result will be achieved here.

I am quite satisfied that such a position can be brought about if we have sufficient patience and a fair amount of perseverance. If those engaged in Irish industry both employers and employees get reasonable time, I believe that what I have suggested can be done. To achieve that result it is necessary, of course, that those engaged in the Irish retail trade would not be so nervous or so sensitive in regard to the whims of those who deal with them. If, in every aspect of Irish life, we had that confidence in ourselves and in the future that I have been speaking of, then I believe that we would have success in Irish industrial life, but we will never have success while we have people going through the country whining—economic quacks I call them. You have those people going around for ever talking economics. There is no such thing to-day as economics in every aspect of life. True economics is the amount of good that you can give to the people by putting them into work —giving them something to do. I am not too sure at all that it should be a question of economics. If you can put people into work and give them a sense of responsibility you, at all events, are doing something good. I do not think that we should look at this so much from what one may call the hard-headed £ s.d. point of view of life. There are much greater things in life than £ s.d. We should look to the future of our country and be prepared to make any sacrifices that are necessary for its good. If you succeed in putting people into work, then in many cases you are taking them out of mischief. We should have confidence in one another, confidence in the future, not be afraid of hard work, and be ready to go ahead in a spirit of perseverance. In that way we will succeed in overcoming the drawbacks that we have had to face in the early stages of our industrial development. If we proceed on the lines that I have indicated, we will succeed in building up our country and in giving it a sound industrial life. It is far better in my opinion to do that than to allow ourselves to be led away by the theories of the so-called hard-headed economists.

Mr. Baxter

I feel that after listening to Senator McEllin, I would need to wander very far indeed from this measure before it could be said that I had transgressed the rules of order. I hope, however, to keep as close as possible to the Bill under discussion. I do not think anybody here has any desire to be unusually critical of Irish industries. We all realise that this is a very sensitive period for Irish industries, particularly in view of the London Agreement made on behalf of those industries by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Because of that Agreement, the position is a sensitive one, and no one will desire to add to the general feeling of instability and insecurity, of which there is evidence in the case of many of our new industries. If I have anything unpleasant to say, I do not want it to be thought that I am doing it in the frame of mind of one who wants to say unpleasant things for the pleasure of doing so. Senator McEllin put the matter in another form when he said that if we want to do things right here we must face the facts of life.

The Minister is dealing with a number of industries in this Bill. We have got to face the position with regard to them. As the Minister himself has repeatedly said up and down the country, they are not going to live unless they can justify themselves by their competence and efficiency. The great trouble in regard to this Bill is this, that the Minister is asking us to confirm orders which have already been made by him. He wants the House to assent to that. The House has the right to refuse to give that assent, and indeed there are very grave reasons why the House should carefully examine the position. Senator Professor Johnston put the position very well in the admirable speech to which we have just listened. There are very grave reasons why, when the Minister invites our co-operation in this matter, we should carefully examine what exactly the Minister desires to have done and the repercussions therefrom. It seems to me that the Minister thinks that traders up and down the country can alter their business just because he chooses to make an order. The Minister has made a number of orders calculated to put a number of people out of business, to upset business absolutely and to change completely the prospects of people overnight. In my judgment that is not as it ought to be. This measure, in my opinion, is itself evidence of a lack of clarity of thought and a lack of policy on the part of the Minister in the matter of our new industries. The Minister has come before the House with this Bill, and is actually asking for power to remit duties which he has already imposed—certainly in one or two instances.

Mr. Lemass

Which of them is the Senator referring to?

Mr. Baxter

The Minister is altering them in five or six instances, as far as I remember. I cannot exactly indicate the ones in which an alteration is being made, but if what I say is not true the Minister can correct me. That, however, was the impression that I got when the Minister was speaking. I am not able, as I have said, to indicate the particular order or orders that he did refer to, but I understood him to make a reference to a number of orders, and that in these instances he is actually altering duties which have already been imposed. That, in my opinion, is all wrong.

What is the position with regard to these orders? Is it not this? An order is made to-day imposing a duty. Following the making of it people buy goods. They find that when the goods have been purchased, paid for and brought into the country, the Minister comes along with another order varying the amount of the duty already imposed. The people who have purchased goods under the original order are left with the goods in their shops, while their neighbours who did not buy in are then enabled to go out and buy in supplies of the same goods at a lower price. The result is that those who purchased under the old order are left with the goods in their shop windows, while their neighbours, having bought at a lower price, are in a position to trade on more favourable terms. I am quite certain that the Minister knows that that is so. I say that is unfair and unjust, because the result of it is to worsen the position of traders up and down the country. It is action of that sort on the part of the Minister that is creating instability and insecurity in the minds of the business community. It is as bad a thing in its way as some of the things that the Nazis are doing in Germany, and apparently Senator McEllin would, as regards some aspects of their policy, like to imitate them. The result of all that has been that you have reduced the traders in this country to this state: that, as Senator Professor Johnston has said, they are not prepared to tell you what the facts are. They are afraid. That is not as it ought to be, but it is true.

Take the position with regard to the boot trade in the country, of which I myself have a certain amount of information, and of the kind of products that the farmers are being asked to buy, the difficulties that have been created because of the monopoly given to these people in Cork, the difficulties of obtaining their products, and the difficulties of obtaining products from abroad. Some one said to me a fortnight ago that there is not a farmer in this country who will not be incapacitated with rheumatism in another year or two if they have to go on wearing the kind of things served up for the last 12 months or more. I know that it is not pleasant to be saying these things, but what is one to do? Am I expected to address the Minister in one of the passages in the House or go into his office? I do not say that I would not be received. That is the problem, and that is the situation. I am satisfied about that, and apparently the Minister is quite satisfied, because when he goes down the country he would not talk as he talks about the necessity for efficiency in our industries only that he is quite convinced that there is a grave necessity for it.

I suggest that the Minister should make his office a clearing house for the complaints, grievances and difficulties of the traders down the country who are supplying the people with the commodities which they must buy if they are to clothe themselves; that he should listen to them and have some appreciation of their difficulties and of the conditions which his orders are creating for them. I can say, as far as my experience goes, that that is the feeling of the people in the trade down the country. It is all right for the Minister to be pushing his industrial policy for all it is worth and with all his great energy; but there are other people in the country as well, and the Minister ought to take cognisance of the kind of service the industrialists are giving to the people.

There are all these difficulties with regard to customs regulations. I have been shown communications by traders that they have received from the customs authorities regarding goods ordered. The goods were there for a week or a month or two or three months, and it was not until they communicated with the firm in England which sent the goods that it was possible to obtain the goods. There was no chance of being able to get the position elucidated by appealing to the people at home. There are so many orders and so many different kinds of things affected by these orders that it is quite clear that the customs authorities hardly know where they are. That is inevitable. The Minister should have realised long ago the complexities he was creating for the business community and the people who want to be served by these various orders that have to be changed perhaps in a week or month after they are made. All that instability and uncertainty is definitely very bad for trade, and it is having its effect on the new industries here. Senator McEllin would go out for a whole-hog policy of tariffs. He says that the future depends on a more intensive tariff policy.

Mr. McEllin

More home production.

Mr. Baxter

I do not want to go into all that, but I would point out that the great difficulty for us as the main producers in the country is that all the products which we have to buy to-day have to be bought somewhere around a figure of 170 against a pre-war figure of 100. We are paying 170 for what we were paying 100 pre-war and we get around 100 or 110 for what we have to sell. That is the consequence of this industrial policy of the Minister so far as we are concerned. Even if, after paying 170 for the commodity, it was as good as the commodity we got pre-war at 100, it would not be so bad.

Mr. Tunney

It is better.

Mr. Baxter

If Senator Tunney was handling shovels or spades or buckets or wearing some of the boots I referred to he would know. I can give him some information outside that would, perhaps, startle him. I do not want to be labouring the point unduly.

Mr. Tunney

You should not run down your own country's productions.

Mr. Baxter

I am not running down my own country's productions. I am pleading for an attitude of mind on the part of the people who want us to produce more that will stand for efficient production at home and the production of materials or articles that Irishmen can stand over, either in their own country or outside.

Mr. Tunney

Give us a chance. We are only a young nation.

Mr. Baxter

I said at the beginning that I do not want to be unduly critical. I want to assure the House that I have no desire to be. On the other hand, as purchasers of the commodities which the Minister is trying to manufacture here, the farming community, I believe, are placed under a disadvantage not experienced by any other agricultural population in the world. I think that is not fair. We have a perfect right to protest in the only way and in the only place left to us to protest. So far as I can see, if the traders have grievances or difficulties, there is very little redress for them at present. They must bear their burden silently, because in many cases they are afraid of something worse happening if they began to talk. I put it to the Minister that that is not as it ought to be. I do not know that the Minister desires that such a situation should exist, but I can say that I have tried to get information which was given to me by two or three people put on paper and the answer I got was that from their point of view it might not be suitable for them and satisfactory for their business if it came out that they were telling the truth.

Mr. Lemass

It did not occur to you to suspect the information?

Mr. Baxter

I have no reason to believe that the information was not absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, I was present when a representative of some of the firms concerned was being taken to task for the way they were doing their work and there was no question then of this Bill being on the mat. I suggest that, instead of the Minister taking up this attitude, because that is what the people think he and his Department will do and are doing, he should take up the other attitude; because if industries and industrialists are to be helped and encouraged they can only be helped and encouraged by the people to whom they are supplying the goods having confidence that they are capable of supplying the right kind of goods; and, if they do not, that there is a Minister in charge to whom the people can come with their grievances with a hope of finding redress. The Bill is undoubtedly objectionable but, like another Bill which we had here the other evening, it is all part of a scheme and of a policy. It is being carried out, in my view, hastily and without a proper plan. The Minister would not be asking us to support him in passing orders varying and altering the duties if there was proper planning before the duties were fixed.

Mr. Douglas

I personally am only interested in one manufacturing industry in this country, and that is a comparatively old one, but I have been, in the nature of things, in touch with a very considerable number of our manufacturers, including those of the most recent. I do not want to follow the last speakers in their general lines, but I cannot resist making two definite comments. One is that I am convinced that however just certain criticism may be with regard to Irish products, a fair and impartial examination will show that certainly in the last few years the improvement has been much greater than any of us could have expected within the time. I do not believe in stifling criticism of Irish manufactures nor do I believe in wild criticism. I urge on my friends on both sides of the House not to accept—I speak as a retailer as well —everything they are told in a shop as an excuse either with regard to customs or with regard to particular goods. A very large proportion of the goods which I, as a retailer, sell are now of Irish manufacture. I do not mark "Irish manufacture" on them. I simply sell them on quality. That is, to a certain extent, due to tariffs. If my friend, Senator Johnston, thinks that there are a large number of gold mines in the country upon which people are sitting, I can assure him that they are not as numerous as turnip seeds and that there is no need to thin them out. There are, I suppose, a few gold mines but I have not found them and I am not quite sure that the word "gold" should be applied to them as a certain amount of the profits in these cases are paper profits.

With regard to the Bill, the last speakers have provided a criticism of this particular method of dealing with duties, because they have shown that it is almost impossible to deal with any long list of tariffs without dealing with the policy behind them. That is perfectly correct. I have knowledge, direct or indirect, of a number of the changes proposed here and I have no criticism to offer. If there had been any strong criticism from one side of any of the provisions of this measure I would have heard of it through the association to which I belong. I am, however, convinced that the time has come when the Minister should seriously consider whether he should go on using this particular Act for this purpose. I think that it is impossible for the most competent Minister or the most competent staff to know the complete incidence of any particular tariff until it has come into operation. I believe equally that it is impossible for any manufacturer to know that. It will be, therefore, necessary, as long as you have a tariff policy, to provide some comparatively simple means of making the adjustments which prove necessary during the operation of a particular tariff. Though I am opposed to this system, if I were to be asked immediately to vote for the abolition of the Act, part of which was read by Senator Johnston, I could not do so unless there was some other scheme, but I should urge on the Minister to consider the setting up of a small expert committee to go into this system and see how far it would be possible to reduce licensing powers. It is probably a good thing that we cannot put questions to Ministers in this House. If we had that power I would put down a question to the Minister asking the number of hours spent by manufacturers in the Department's premises in Lord Edward Street in any given year. The answer to that question would provide an argument against the licensing system, not to speak of a number of other things.

In conclusion, there is one thing on which I would like to lay emphasis. The Minister has a certain sense of humour—sometimes more than at other times. I can see him smiling when he signed the particular order which appears in the paper this morning and I can hear him saying, "I got these powers to operate the economic war and, now, I am using the same powers to carry out the economic peace." This Act is being used to carry out the recommendations of the Prices Commission in respect of the Agreement with Great Britain. I respectfully suggest to the Minister and the Government that these changes—they are not minor changes or they would not be dealt with by the Prices Commission— should, in each case, be implemented by a Bill so that they could be given public discussion. I do not think that public discussion would do any harm and I do not think that it would cause the Minister any embarrassment, though it might cause him some trouble. Many people think that the operation of the Prices Commission is going to be very unfair to and do great injury to Irish manufacturers. I do not agree with that. I do not accept the advice of the Deputy who urged that the proper thing to do was to howl. I dislike howling before one is hurt. To my mind, the changes which will inevitably take place will be most effective if the Minister carries public opinion with him as the changes are being made. That can be brought about by dealing with the matter in the older way. There cannot be urgency to the extent of a week or a month. I think it is wrong and bad policy to use this particular Act for carrying out the provisions of the Agreement with Great Britain in so far as they are represented by changing orders recommended by the Prices Commission. I protest against the procedure which has been adopted. I can see that it is easier for the Minister to adopt this procedure, and I recognise that the Government is bound under the Agreement to carry out these recommendations. But the Government has a majority in the Dáil, and even if they had not a more faithful majority here, this House could not stop them, so that there is no danger. This is a kind of thing on which public discussion would be valuable. I do not think that the public would gain very much by detailed discussion of the provisions of this Bill even if we were competent to discuss them. But the time has come when the powers given under this Act should be limited to minor changes.

Donnchadh O hEaluighthe

Ní raibh dúil agam labhairt ar an gceist seo ach tar éis bheith ag eisteacht leis na Seanadóirí eile, ba mhaith liom cupla focal a rá. I did not think that we were going to have a general discussion upon our industrial revival, but, since the discussion has entered that domain, it is reasonable I should answer some of the points made by previous speakers. You, a Chathaoirligh, as well as I, remember the late Arthur Griffith and the endeavour he made to put new life into this country. He compared this country to a "one-armed nation." That was because we were depending chiefly upon agriculture. Our industries were then definitely strangled, and the general belief is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is doing at least one man's part to undo the evil then done. He has been succeeding wonderfully well, according to the opinion of the people with whom I come in touch. Senator Johnston referred to the reduction in the export of beer and spirits. We all have common-sense enough to know the cause of that decline in the export of beer. The firm of Guinness were the greatest exporters of beer we had. Guinness have now another brewery in Park Royal, in London, and I understand that that brewery is taking away from the production in the Dublin brewery. Possibly that accounts for the decrease in the export of beer. I was struck by Senator Baxter's remarks with reference to our industries. He referred particularly to boots. I am sorry he is not here now. The question of boots is one of which I have some knowledge. In my young days in this city we had tanneries working. I, myself, used the leather that was tanned in these tanneries. I used that leather in the boots that I wore. These tanneries, however, were strangled. The position was that the whole tanning industry was gone. Now, we have the position that, not only have we a boot-making industry in this country, but the tanning industry has also been revived. For instance, the tannery in Portlaw is doing very well. I was in Clonmel last June 12 months at a meeting in connection with technical education, and I found that the industry generally was going very well there. The same applies to Cork. Senator Crosbie referred, I think, to the question of the supply of Irish-manufactured boots in Cork. He need not go as far as Cork in that connection.

I think I remember the Minister for Industry and Commerce having been down in Senator Baxter's native county—I am speaking subject to correction—in connection with the opening of a boot factory. According to Senator Baxter, a lot of the consumption prevalent in the country is due to bad boots. Well, all I can say is that I will bring Senator Baxter along to the City of Dublin and can show him where he can get boots manufactured in the old handicraft way—similar boots to those I am wearing myself and that I have been wearing for years. I can tell the Senator that there are handicraft workers in the City of Dublin whose work can compare with that of anybody in any country both in regard to price and quality. If Senator Baxter is agreeable I will bring him to a place in the City of Dublin where he can get such boots, and I can assure him that he need have no fear with regard to bad boots in the future. As I said at the start, Sir, I did not intend to labour this matter, because I understood that we were only dealing with quotas in connection with this measure and that we were not dealing with new legislation. For that reason, I am only confining myself now to dealing with the statement made by Senator Baxter. I do not think Senator Baxter is present at the moment, but when he comes back I should like to tender to him the advice I am now giving.

Mr. Quirke

Like Senator Healy, Sir, I had no intention of intervening in this debate, because I did not think that any Senator of this House would oppose the passage of this particular Bill. We are asked to pass this measure merely to give the Minister power to do certain things which, in his opinion, are necessary in connection with the industrial development of this country. Now, Senator Johnston suggests that the Minister has put obstacles in the way of the development of Irish industry. I say that anybody who puts obstacles in the way of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the development of his policy is definitely putting obstacles in the way of the development of Irish industry. My reason for saying that is that a great many people, many of whom do not necessarily agree with my particular political views, agree with me when I say that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce has done more than any other person has been able to do, so far, for the development of Irish industry. Senator Johnston, in his speech, dealt with almost everything except guinea pigs' tails. He dealt with these the other day, as I understand, and I am surprised that he did not deal with them to-day. However, apart from that, the Senator went on to say that he believed it was a bad thing that parcels coming into this country should be opened as a result of the activities of the Department of Industry and Commerce. Surely the Senator will agree that such activities are necessary, even though they prove irksome at times. For instance, I had an experience the other day. Rather, it was not my own experience, but the story was told to me and, naturally, I took the story to be what one might call a hard-luck tale. According to the story, the customs authorities were asking for £5 on a particular parcel of goods, and my information was that this was a parcel of second-hand goods. I called up the Department, and then I found out that it was a parcel containing a number of new frocks on which the duty for each article would be about 15/-. That convinced me that there is a necessity, even though it may involve a certain amount of inconvenience, for interference by the Customs authorities. It convinced me that such interference, even though, as I have said, it may lead to inconvenience, is necessary for the good of the country as a whole.

I believe that a lot of what has been said in the speeches of Senators Baxter and Johnston, to the effect that we cannot produce goods properly in this country, is due to a certain inferiority complex in this country. For instance, Senator Baxter talked about people dying of consumption because of the bad quality of Irish boots that they had to wear. Well, I remember being in jail on a certain occasion; I had a pain in my head and when I complained I was told by a British soldier that the pain in my head was due to the Irish cigarettes I was smoking. Well, I have always been smoking Irish cigarettes and I am still smoking them. I suppose we may take it for granted the people in this country were suffering from rheumatism, when there were very few Irish boots or shoes being manufactured here. According to the argument that has been put forward, if people are now suffering from rheumatism, it is because they are wearing Irish boots and shoes. Senator Baxter knows— he must know—that the fact that the people here are now wearing Irish boots or Irish shoes has nothing at all to do with their general health. He knows quite well—he must know— that the boots made here can compare favourably with the boots made in any other country. Just like Senator Healy, I have been wearing Irish-made boots since I was a kid. I have been wearing Irish hand-made boots, as Deputy Healy told the Seanad he has been wearing. I have worn nothing else, and I think that these boots will carry me as far as Senator Baxter's or Senator Johnston's boots will carry them. I think that this idea of an inferiority complex with regard to Irish-manufactured articles should be banished out of the minds of the people of this country, and I hold that the only way to get anywhere, so far as the industries of our country are concerned, is to create a pride in the products of our own country and a confidence in the minds of our people in our products—a confidence that the products of our country are as good as, and, in fact, better than, the article that can be produced in any other country.

This Bill is being opposed by certain people because it gives the Minister power to alter tariffs, and it was suggested that the original Bill should have been abolished at the termination of the economic war. I believed, at that time, that to call that particular issue an economic war was a misnomer—that it was an intensive effort——

Mr. Douglas

Is it in order, Sir, to go back to the economic war?

Mr. Quirke

——on behalf of another country to coerce this country. However, whether we agree with the name or not, that economic war is not finished. It is going on still, and I believe that, as the years go on, that war will become intensified. There will always be in this country, as in every other country, the necessity to examine from day to day our position with regard to competition with other countries so far as the marketing of our goods here at home and in competition with other countries is concerned. That will always be so, and I suggest that it is a ridiculous idea to expect that the Dáil or the Seanad should be called here every time that, for any reason, the Minister should feel it necessary to reduce or to increase a tariff because certain things, over which he has no control, have happened in other countries. If certain things, as I have said, over which he has no control, take place in other countries, and which may affect our country very materially, the Minister must take action. Is the policy suggested that the Minister cannot make any alteration whatsoever in any existing tariff without calling the Oireachtas together to consider the proposed alteration? In other words, is it suggested that, if during the next two or three weeks of the Christmas holidays the Minister should feel that it was necessary to modify a tariff in any way, he must be under the handicap of waiting until the members of the Oireachtas have returned after the Christmas holidays and have deliberated and satisfied themselves as to what the Minister should do with regard to that tariff.

Mr. Douglas

On a point of correction, Sir, may I point out that it was agreed yesterday that this Bill would not be delayed to-day?

Mr. Quirke

Well, after all, it is a good thing that the Senator agrees on that point, but if there has been any delay I suggest that the Senator himself, and the Senator on his right have contributed to it.

Mr. Douglas

I am referring solely to the Senator's reference to keeping it over Christmas. There is no such intention on any side of the House. I want to make that clear.

Mr. Quirke

I did not get what Senator Douglas said, but if the Senator suggests that I would not be agreeable to come back here——

Mr. Fitzgerald

He did not say that.

Mr. Quirke

I do not know what he said. I would ask him to say it again.

Mr. Douglas

It is all right. Go on.

Mr. Quirke

It is all very fine to tell me to go on when I do not know what the Senator said, because it just suits his book, and always has suited it, to misrepresent somebody, and then be the most "hardshipped" man in the House—the man who is entitled to the most sympathy, Senator Johnston also dealt with the decentralisation of industry, and found great fault with the Minister because he had created certain industries here, there and everywhere else throughout the country. I say that that was not the Minister's policy at all, that it was the policy of the people. In fact, I find myself cheering when I look forward to the making of this new political Party. Possibly, it was the Bill which was introduced yesterday, conferring certain honours on Leaders of Opposition Parties in the House, that put it into their minds. I do not know. In any case, the idea of coming in here, and making it an excuse on a Bill such as this to try to tell the Minister that because of his policy factories were set up here, there and everywhere all over the country——

Professor Johnston

I never said a word about the decentralisation of industry.

Mr. Quirke

I would ask the Senator to look up his own speech in the Official Debates, and he will find that he did refer to the decentralisation of industry. In fact he went so far as to say that instead of having those industries here, there and everywhere else he would suggest, I think, a dozen big industries. The policy of the people, as expressed by the people very definitely in election after election, was to have greater decentralisation of industry, to have a greater number of small industries in the smaller towns rather than to have all the industries collected here in the City of Dublin, Cork, Galway, or anywhere else.

Professor Johnston

I did not say that all those industries should be situated in Dublin or Cork.

Mr. Quirke

I quite agree that the Senator did not mention either Dublin or Cork, but if he wants to submit that we should have only a very small number of big industries I am quite certain that Senator Johnston did not suggest we should have them in Bally-macarbery.

Professor Johnston

I am quite certain I did not.

Mr. Quirke

It is quite obvious where he wanted to have them. I do not want to prolong this debate any further. I do not propose to follow the people who rambled from one end of the globe to the other. What I do say is that it is absolutely unreasonable for anybody to try to tie the Minister's hands in connection with this Bill. If they try to do that, they cannot at the same time convince anybody that they are interested in the welfare of Irish industry, the promotion of which is the work of the Minister, and in which work he has proved himself, at least in the opinion of most people in this country, very efficient.

Professor Johnston

Hear, hear.

Mr. Tunney

I was very disappointed to hear the statement made by a responsible Senator like Senator Baxter. I had a rather high opinion of him since I came into the Seanad. I thought he was very fair, but now he has gone down quite a lot in my estimation. The statement made by Senator Baxter here is a statement which we have been listening to for years and years—that the Irish people are not fit to produce something as good as is produced outside. As a matter of fact, I have met people who would argue that Player's cigarettes have not been so good since they were manufactured in this country. I have also met people who argue that the Sunlight soap manufactured here is not as good quality as that produced on the other side. That is the kind of slave mind which we should like to see put down. I say, as one who has always supported Irish manufacture as much as possible and wherever it was available, that Irish-manufactured boots, Irish-manufactured clothing, Irish-manufactured farm implements and everything else are second to none, and I am disappointed at a responsible Senator like Senator Baxter making the statement to which we listened here. It is all right coming from somebody at a street corner who does not realise what he is saying, because it has been dinned into the people for years that we are not fit to produce those commodities. That is what we want to see put down. I say that Irish-manufactured goods are second to none. I am one of those who are not afraid to criticise a Minister, and I say that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has done more work in five years than any other man in the Empire has done in a lifetime. I am one of those who realise the position as it is to-day. Senators may laugh at my statement, but you have only to go around the country to find in every county a monument to the Minister. I was down in my native town this summer, and in the thread factory in Westport I was delighted to see at least 300 hands earning good wages on the manufacture of first-class thread. Is it not far better to see them working in this country on the manufacture of that thread than to see them going over to England to manufacture it? Similarly, with regard to boots, I would suggest to Senator Baxter that in Westport he will find boots which will keep rheumatism out for a life-time if it has not already set in. I do say that we have full confidence in the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and consider that he is quite capable of dealing with those tariffs.

Mr. Goulding

I do not think it is necessary to spend a lot of time in discussing the tariff policy. It has been debated time and time again during the last five years, so why waste time in discussing it now? Irish manufactured goods require no defence. I am not going to enter into a defence of goods which I consider do not need any such defence. The Minister has come before us asking us to pass this measure giving him authority to alter those tariffs. It is very necessary that there should be no delay in assenting to that. If the Minister had not this power it would be very hard for him to prevent the dumping of goods in this country. It is very essential that the Minister should have power at any time to make such alterations as will prevent injury to Irish industry.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

Senator Douglas said that one of his objections to this type of legislation was that it tended to divert attention from details to questions of general policy. It seems to me, however, that that is merely a matter of regulation, and that however desirable it may be to ensure that measures of this nature get a detailed examination when they come before the Oireachtas, it is equally desirable that we should discuss questions of general policy from time to time. The only matter that arises for decision in that connection is the best arrangement to ensure adequate discussion. When I intervened in the course of Senator Johnston's remarks I did so for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that I had come here with the intention of discussing golf balls, milk pails, and other things mentioned to the Schedule to this Bill, and had received no intimation from anybody that I might be expected to discuss the relation between industrial and agricultural wages, or the causes which had effects upon the exports of certain industries none of which were affected by any of the orders scheduled to this Bill. I submit to the members of the Seanad as a reasonable method of procedure that Bills of this kind should be discussed for what is in them, and that if they want to discuss questions of general policy they should make other opportunities for doing so. I have no desire to shirk discussions of general policy. On the contrary, I welcome them, because it is apparent that quite a number of members of the Seanad require education upon this matter, and I am prepared to do my part. But if we are to have, as we had on every occasion recently, discussions upon some aspects of general policy on a Bill of this kind, it is clear that the details of these measures will not receive the attention they deserve. Questions of policy, in the long run, are settled by the people, and no decisions made here are likely to alter policy to a substantial extent, except over a period of time. No matter how definite the people may have been in their decisions in relation to our industrial policy, no matter how firmly convinced the majority in the Dáil or the Seanad may be as to the wisdom of that policy, it is inevitable that, from time to time, details relating to its application will be open to question, and to improvement in method of administration, or in the application of policy resulting from suggestions made here. It is because I hold that view that I dislike Bills of this kind being made the occasion of a discussion on general policy, as the occasion is really inappropriate for it. Senator Johnston in the course of his address used many very impressive phrases. I am sure those who read his speech in the Official Debates will be able to add considerably to their knowledge of the jargon used in class-rooms and text-books, but behind the phraseology of these weighty phrases and professorial jargon we recognise theories which are in fact very old acquaintances. We met them all before. We thought some of them were dead. We thought that others of them had grown hoary with old age and had got beyond the stage when they could be trotted out again.

Professor Johnston

They are not as old as the heresies the Minister professes.

Mr. Lemass

I am not professing any heresies. I am frankly unable to decide whether I should describe the Senator's views as archaic or Utopian. Some of the views he gave expression to can be found in musty volumes in old libraries, while others bear on a condition of affairs which never before existed upon earth and perhaps never will exist upon earth. At any rate, he has given expression to a plan. I would like to bring to his attention the fact that in part that plan has been tried. He has not asked us to adopt a new idea. He is adopting as a new idea something that we have tried and the results of which we know. We have often before heard that phrase of his, "the healthy openair of free competition." It was quite a stock phrase for leader-writers in newspapers in the past, when the idea of industrial revival was mooted. That phrase is not an original one. Our industries were exposed "to the healthy-open-air of free competition" and they just disappeared. It may be that they were weak.

Professor Johnston

May I interrupt to point out that I advocated what might be called selective protection to secure industries.

Mr. Lemass

And these protected industries were all well wiped out. If the people in Germany, or the people in Japan decided to maintain a standard of living much lower than our standard, and if every country was prepared to depreciate its currency, and to put itself in a position to sell goods cheaper than we could make them, our industries would be wiped out. The Senator's theory has been applied in the past by other countries. It is probably a good sound theory if we could visualise a world in which purely economic ideals were going to operate, in which national boundaries had disappeared, and we had a universal State in which people could move freely. The Senator and others like him have, perhaps, forgotten that these theories do not apply now. What these theorists forget is that other people have a say in the matter People who arrange these things are not prepared to adopt practices to suit their principles, merely to prove that their theories are right. It is a grand idea to concentrate on a half dozen big industries and to develop an export trade, but where is the guarantee that the people of other countries would allow you to have that export trade? Are you satisfied that they are going to allow you to have an export trade? Are you prepared to stake the whole future prosperity of the country on the certainty that, over a long period of years, these half-dozen industries will maintain an export trade? I think Senator Johnston, in the name of commonsense and stability, is asking us to take a gamble so big that we would be reckless fools if we attempted it. All these theories are very well in an atmosphere divorced from reality.

Senator Johnston's objection to the Bill was the type of objection that one would expect from theorists who never attempted to deal with practical problems, or were never called upon to apply the theories to world facts. It is quite easy to say that the Government should not have power to deal with the imposition and the modification of tariffs by order, but in practice no other system is possible. If you admit that a protectionist policy is in force, and that that protectionist policy is going to continue in force, then the power which the Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, gave the Government was essential, if it was to be implemented at all. In the circumstances of this country, within a few hours' sailing of a great industrial nation, it is practically impossible to prevent public information being secured whenever a new industrial project is being mooted. It is physically impossible to apply a protectionist policy at all without the incidence of some such powers. Our predecessors were by no means a protectionist Government. Yet they found that it was essential to have such powers, and passed the Provisional Imposition of Duties Act, 1931, to give them these powers. Their Act was defective and could not be made operative. They realised, even in the period of selective protection, that powers imposing new duties by order, subject to subsequent confirmation by the Dáil, was essential to efficient working, and anybody who has got away from the atmosphere of theory, and considered these matters in their practical application, has to realise at once that no other procedure was possible. Apart altogether from the difficulties that would arise in relation to parliamentary time, every separate order we made or unmade would have to be the subject of a separate resolution in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not propose to follow Senator Johnston or, for that matter, Senator Baxter through most of the arguments they used. I am prepared to deal with these on another occasion, as I do not want to take up the time of the House dealing with them now.

I would like to say a few words to Senator Baxter. His speech to-day was the product of a mentality which, in my opinion, is the curse of this country. I have no doubt that the existence of that mentality here is quite natural, having regard to the fact that we have been in slavery for 700 years. I submit that the Senator should reconsider his own principles. He referred to the fact that I have frequently spoken about the need for efficiency in our industries. I have done so, but I have also, and on a recent occasion, condemned those who are always looking for faults to find, those who can say nothing good of the products of our industries. It may be that Senator Baxter does not really believe that the wearing of Irish boots is going to cause rheumatism, but the fact that he said that is going to be given some publicity in the newspapers and it will constitute another brick to throw, it will supply more ammunition for those who want to assail our industries. I do not know if Senator Baxter plays golf, but, if he does, then the first time he slices a drive or misses a putt, I daresay he will attribute it to the fact that he is playing with an Irish-made golf ball.

Mr. M. Hayes

An Irish-made golf ball?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, an Irish-made golf ball.

Mr. Baxter

He slices all his drives.

Mr. Lemass

It is part of my duty to keep up all the pressure possible in order to bring Irish industries to a state of maximum efficiency. Those who know what has been done in that respect will, I am sure, be the first to pay tribute to the existence of it. I may say that the industries that have been established have responded to that pressure and in many respects we have reached a degree of efficiency much higher than I had thought possible in the limited period that our industrial programme has been in operation. There will always be people who will say that that is not so, people who will endeavour to run down our industries. For instance, if an Irish-made motor tyre is punctured there will be people ready to declare that it is due to the fact that it was an Irish-made tyre and not to the fact that it was a nail in the road that caused the puncture. Again, if a regiment of the Abyssinian Army was supplied with water bottles made in the Nenagh factory the fact that the Abyssinians lost the war would not necessarily be due to their soldiers carrying water bottles made in Nenagh, but yet you will find people prepared to argue in that way. Senator Baxter is one of them. If the Senator could only realise the utter nonsense he has been talking here I feel sure he would never do it again.

Mr. Baxter

He is quite certain that he is talking the truth.

Mr. Lemass

Reference was made in the course of the discussion to the production of leather. We are producing sole leather for boots and shoes as good as any that can be produced in England.

Mr. Baxter

What about the uppers?

Mr. Lemass

We are producing upper leather equally as good as that which can be produced in England and, when the new tannery gets going at Carrick-on-Suir, we will be producing varieties that are not produced in Great Britain and that the British have never succeeded in producing satisfactorily on a commercial scale.

Mr. Baxter

What have you been producing?

Mr. Lemass

I am quite prepared to go through the whole range of industries if the Senator wishes. I will admit that some of our products are as yet inferior to the British, but there are others of our products about which it can be said without question that they are superior to anything produced in Britain. For instance, if you ask anybody using Irish cement, what will they tell you? They will tell you that it is better than anything that is imported. Is that not so?

Mr. Quirke

It is.

Mr. Baxter

What else?

Mr. Lemass

Why does the Senator ask me that question?

Mr. Quirke

Let Senator Baxter take his medicine.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to point this out to Senator Baxter, that it is the development of that type of mentality that takes a pride in the progress of our own industries that is going to bring us to the stage of efficiency that we all want, and we will not attain that ideal by denouncing our workers, our industrialists, as incompetent or lazy. Senator Johnston asked in relation to the Bill, what is there left for the Oireachtas to do when a Bill of this kind is produced? I submit that members of the Oireachtas should at least read the Bills. It is quite obvious from the remarks of Senators Johnston and Baxter that they did not read this Bill. Surely their first object should be to find out what the Bill is about, and what the orders relate to. They will find that most of them are of comparatively minor importance. They are certainly of a character which would not justify the procedure which the Senators appear to desire, the submission of separate resolutions and discussions in each House of the Oireachtas.

It is possible to get that separate discussion if the Senators want it. We could take this Bill in Committee and deal with each of these items separately. It is possible for the Oireachtas to revoke every one of the orders and in that way you would secure the control of the people's representatives over the powers of the Executive. Senator Johnston read out an extract from the order relating to ply yarn, and he talked about the excessive powers given to the Revenue Commissioners. I would ask him to apply his mind, or to induce his professorial colleagues to apply their minds, to the problem of getting a definition of ply yarn which will enable a customs official to distinguish ply yarn from thread. If he can get that, I am prepared to put it into the order instead of having the section to which he objects.

Professor Johnston

The thing is far too detailed.

Mr. Lemass

It is necessary to have some machinery established in the order which will enable a Revenue Commissioner to admit ply yarn and keep out thread, because thread is dutiable.

Mr. Douglas

If you can get clear definitions, I hope you will employ them at all times.

Mr. Lemass

The only way of making a distinction was by having some direct relation with the purpose for which the imported article would be used. I do not think it is objectionable to deal with the recommendations of the Prices Commission by orders under the 1932 Act, particularly at a time when it would not be convenient to come to the Oireachtas in the ordinary course, by way of financial resolution. It is undoubtedly correct that, when removing a duty, different considerations operate than when a duty is being imposed. Under our law a duty becomes operative immediately the order imposing it is made, or a resolution is passed by the Oireachtas in relation to it. But in removing the duty it is always possible to allow a period of time and, in fact, it will in the ordinary course always be necessary to have an order removing the duty, or a resolution, from a named date ahead. That was done in relation to the orders to which Senator Douglas referred.

While I would favour the submission of these matters to the Dáil in the ordinary course, if that can conveniently be done, I would not move by order under the 1932 Act because I think, in relation to these matters, it is essential we should give evidence of our good faith by acting expeditiously on the reports of the Prices Commission. The proper way to get an individual discussion upon one item in the Schedule is to move an amendment in Committee to take it out. That singles it out for discussion and we could debate that exclusively without reference to any of the other items. That could be done in connection with any of the items, if Senator Douglas or any other Senator so desires.

Question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," agreed to.

Sir John Keane

There are certain matters to which I would like to refer. I would have preferred to have spoken on the Second Stage, but I was unable to avail of that opportunity. I wish to make certain remarks concerning specific items. I could put in an amendment to cover them, but I think I would prefer, with the indulgence of the House, to deal with them on the Final Stage. I shall certainly deal with them at some time or other.

Cathaoirleach

Are Senators satisfied to take the Committee Stage now?

Ordered: That the Committee Stage be now taken.