No. The mark was originally very low on the wall, but the school children had rubbed it out time and again, and eventually, in order to avoid the rubbing out, the authorities had to put the mark up high. That is exactly what has happened here. Deputy Cooper has put a question which is too high for my Department to reach, at the moment; I could not reach it yet. Deputy Cooper has here asked for a return in regard to the number of employees in various industries, with particulars as to their wages. Because I say I cannot give those particulars, Deputy Cooper and Deputy Baxter say that the Minister should pay more attention to the matter, that the Minister's Department should be watched, and that some indication should be given that attention is being paid to all those matters. I emphasise that attention is being paid to those matters, but such attention could not be paid that would enable me, as a result, to give all those items asked for here, because to do so would require compulsory powers.
I wonder would Deputy Baxter, or any of his colleagues, accept particulars from me if I said that I had received them from an advisory committee in connection with the boot and shoe trade? Suppose that I asked that committee to give me a return to indicate whether or not protection had been a benefit, and that simply accepting what they gave me, I placed that information before the Dáil, I wonder would Deputy Baxter take that information without a murmur? Would he take their statement as to what was the effect of the tariff? Remember, I cannot make any other examination. I have no power to go in and examine books, and that is what is required. If Deputy Corish thinks it is for me to send an official from my Department to find out what is the result of a tariff on boots and shoes, or soap and candles, and if information is refused to that official, what am I to do? He dare not come back without having an answer, because Deputy Corish would criticise me very severely in the Dáil for not paying attention to the matter. I cannot pay any attention to it beyond what my powers enable me to pay.
To get on to the point that Deputy Johnson and Deputy Egan touched upon, powers of that sort will be looked for under the statistical legislation that will soon come before the Dáil. At the moment, I cannot go in and, by any threat of compulsion, acquire the information that Deputy Cooper asks for. If I say that now, and say it again, let it not be taken as a confession that the Statistical Branch of the Department is sitting with its arms folded and not getting any particulars or information. I have already stated to Deputy Cooper what information I believe I can get. I can get material on which I could present a summary to the Dáil. Deputy Johnson did draw attention to one point. That is, the question of maximum and minimum rates. I think the question of piece-rates is going to cause difficulties. Piece-rates are known in the first, second and sixth items on this list. I do not know how, exactly, I am to arrive at a maximum or a minimum wage where those things operate. If the Deputy will clear up that matter I will see what I can do to meet him.
I could quote the district rate of wages for a particular class of worker, and I could quote the changes of wages where the changes have been brought about by wage disputes, or where they have been considerably altered by conferences. With regard to the items that have been asked for, I have, actually, particulars in regard to the number of persons employed in one instance. To be more correct, I have figures for only one of the groups mentioned, the first one. There were over 1,800 insurable workers in the boot and shoe trade at the end of June of this year. As for any of the other groups, the confectionery group is included in the industry group, which is known as the manufacture of food and drink group. Soaps and candles, curiously enough, are included in the explosive and chemical group. While I could give numbers of insurable workers employed in any of these eighty-one classifications, I could not get, at the moment, the numbers employed in any of these cases, with the exception of the boot and shoe group, which happens to be set apart by itself.
I quite agree with portion of what Deputy Johnson has said. I go further, and I think it is better, in this country, not to give incomplete returns, particularly when they are so liable to be misunderstood. If one is to give figures which are very indefinite and incomplete, and attempt to guard against misconceptions by setting forth all the points that have to be attended to, immediately people fly into a frenzy and they say that something has to be cloaked, and there is a detective search commenced with a view to finding out what has to be cloaked. It is impossible, innocently, to give out any information actually incomplete, without falling under suspicion. I do not agree with the Deputy's conclusions, which I take to be that he approves of the return as an aid to a certain conclusion. I give it as a warning that the conclusion, if drawn, would be wrong. That is, I think, what his words amounted to. If we give an incomplete figure, the object would be to lead to a certain judgement, and that would be completely and almost necessarily wrong. Deputy Thrift raises a point in answer to my own. The longer the period the greater the opportunity for incalculable factors to come in. That would be so, clearly. I quite agree that is an arguable case normally, but at present the conditions are altogether the other way. Take the point of forestalling. There is no doubt in soap and candles sufficient stuff was brought in, in the period, that had, unfortunately, to be allowed, to make it absolutely certain that this trade has lost by the application of the tariff this year—this trade has definitely lost.
Quantities of goods brought in are now being sold, and are being sold at an enhanced price, and as far as the individual case was concerned the tariff was an absolute loss. Where the tariff was not put on at the particular date, the opportunities for forestalling could not be provided against. I do not think in the circumstances a return for the period that Deputy Cooper looks for, for this year, would be at all satisfactory. I think the likelihood is that over, say, one or even two years, other factors, more or less incalculable, would crop up. The factors that are there at the moment, and would have to be calculated on, are very considerable. As Deputy Johnson pointed out, it may be argued that because the cost of living shows an increase on the price of certain manufactured articles, it is due to the tariff. That does not just hold as a simple argument, because the increase in the cost of living, as evidenced in this report of October, came through the changes in the retail price of eggs, butter, fresh milk, bread, flour and bacon.
If there is going to be any argument on Deputy Gorey's lines, it will not be one that will be very satisfactory to his Party. I would again offer to Deputy Cooper that I will get the information, such as I have described already, and lay a summary of that before the Dáil; but I would ask the Dáil, in considering this motion, to realise that they may ask me to make this return, but they cannot force me to make it, because I cannot force employers to give figures. I cannot do that at present, though I may look for the powers afterwards. I believe I shall have to. I would ask the Deputy to consider the undesirability of pressing for a quarterly return; a yearly return, in my opinion, would be quite sufficient.
