COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS (RESUMED). – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Thursday, 23 Apr 1925

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS (RESUMED).

Mr. McBRIDE

I regret that the Minister has given no indication of any encouragement to the fishing and shipping industries upon which the greatness of this nation, if it is ever to become great, will ultimately depend. I also regret that he has not seen his way to reduce the duty on whiskey, for I am perfectly convinced the manufacture of poteen will never cease until the price of whiskey is considerably reduced. The Minister for Finance has the reputation of being a man of iron will. Well, this man of adamant, although he admits inferentially that he is opposed to protection, has gone down before the onslaughts of the protectionists. I am opposed to protection, and will ever be opposed to protection, for the protected always have to pay for their protection, and the cost of living is always increased by protection.

Deputies on my left are continually calling out for the reduction of artisans' and labourers' wages. How can that be done when they have to pay more for everything that they buy? The Minister says that the price of boots has not been materially increased. Well, the Minister has not, up to the present, got as far as the stage of buying boots except for himself, but I know that people down the country are continually growling about the enhanced prices that they have to pay, and their boots are very rough. I said that the Minister is opposed to protection; he admits it. The Government, he says, does not believe that it would be for the benefit of this country to establish a protective tariff. But why does he do it? He says: "The best hope of a substantial reduction lies in the better development of the resources and the industries of the country." That is quite right. But why should the nursing of inefficiency be carried on at the same time as the development of the resources and the industries of the country? Because protection nurses inefficiency. He referred particularly to the boot trade. I imagine that you are up against a dead wall when you try to manufacture here all the boots that you require. In the United States they have protection, but the Englishman is able to sell his boots there and to undersell the American. In addition, there are different kinds of boots that cannot be manufactured in this country, but which people must and do buy, and on which they must pay enormous taxes. In elaborating his argument, the Minister gave percentages of increases in employment, but why did he not give the numbers? Percentages are very safe, because no one will know the number of men employed. I am exceedingly sorry that the duty on musical instruments is not trebled. There is a plethora of pianos in this country, and they are a regular nuisance.

There is one sentence in the Minister's speech about income tax that he will require to explain. The tax is reduced from 5/- to 4/-; I am sorry he has not reduced it another 6d., to bring it under the English level, because it will really be of no use unless it is under the English level. We must get under the Englishman by some means or other to get trade. In referring to the arrears, the Minister said, "but we are satisfied that the reduction proposed will facilitate and expedite the collection of the old arrears. "Does he mean that the arrears are to come in on the 4/- tax, or on the old tax? That requires explanation. Another tax that I am quite opposed to is the dog tax, which is increased from 4/- to 5/-. The collection of the 4/- tax was quite illegal, and will the declaration in this statement make an illegality legal? Is the tax to be really 4/-, with a shilling for the stamp, to make 5/-, or will it be the old arrangement? If I have half-a-dozen dogs can I put down 4/- for each of them and 1/- for the stamp?

Mr. GOOD

Ask Deputy Gorey.

Mr. GOREY

Leave the dog tax to the dog experts.

Mr. McBRIDE

I asked that yesterday when I discovered that the dog tax was illegal. I congratulate the Minister on the subsidy to the beet industry, because while I am really opposed to protection I am altogether in favour of subsidies for production. I maintain that if you give manufacturers protection they will more or less go on the old plea: "What was good enough for my father is good enough for me"; they will never try to get ahead. As long as you give them a protective tariff they will go on in the same jog-trot way and they will never try to improve to any extent. If you give them a subsidy on what they manufacture, you will arrive at the goal which it is our desire to attain, but protection is not the way to do it. These beet manufacturers will get a subsidy on the amount of sugar that they produce. If you were to give the same thing to the boot and to the musical instrument manufacturers, and all the others you have in this list, it would be far better for the country, far better for employment, than this imposition of tariffs, to which I am pleased to see that the Minister himself is actually opposed but which for one reason or another he proposes that the Dáil should adopt. This establishment of the beet industry in Cork is very good.

Mr. GOREY

We want to get this right. Did the Minister definitely state that this factory was to be in Cork, because there is a good deal of doubt in people's minds as to what he said on that subject?

Mr. BLYTHE

No, sir; I did not say Cork. The subsidies will be given to the people who run the factory, but as to the location they can elect where it will be.

Mr. GOREY

The Minister made some references to the North Cork Development Association and people have connected the two things. I think they are wrong.

Mr. BLYTHE

We simply indicated to the Belgian people that considerable interest was taken and considerable preliminary organisation had been carried on in North Cork.

Mr. McBRIDE

I am not by any means opposed to the establishment of the factory in Cork. The Corkmen shout and they shout very loudly, but there are people who do not shout at all and they ought to get a look in, people who do their work as well as the Corkmen, if not better.

A DEPUTY

Question.

Mr. McBRIDE

There is no question about it at all; it is an established fact. I hope that the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and the Ministry of Agriculture will give some encouragement to the western farmers to induce them to grow beet, because it can be grown in seaboard counties far better than in inland counties, and the lack of employment in the West is inconceivable. No one can conceive, or imagine, how the people there are able to live on practically nothing but fresh air, tea, and potatoes, and very bad potatoes.

Mr. DALY

Particular stress has been laid by Deputy Cooper and Deputy Egan on the tax on boots. I was very recently in Cork, where we have a boot factory. In the month of January, 1924, that boot factory was closed down. All hands were idle, and the homes were suffering. In the month of January, 1925, as a result of the tax put on imported boots, there was £900 a week paid out there in wages, or nearly £4,000 for that month. Better still, it was explained to me that so far from the price of boots being increased, the price would have been reduced this year were it not for the increase in the price of leather. The prices at which the boots made in Cork are sold never increased above the figure at which they stood before the tax was put on. I think it only right to let the Dáil know this. I might also state that two large additions have been built to this factory in order to meet the pressing demands and the increased trade which the boot tax, put on last year, has given rise to. For that reason, we in Cork, although we are very much shouted down if we ever speak at all, congratulate ourselves in giving a lead, at least in the manufacture of boots. We wear our own boots in Cork.

Now, there is another industry in Cork, and I am sorry that the Minister for Finance overlooked it. He did not tell us that he proposed to reduce the road tax on the Ford cars. Fords are giving a vast amount of employment in the City of Cork. They pay thousands weekly in wages, and it would be an encouragement to other firms to start if they found that the Government of the Saorstát was discriminating in favour of Irish firms who were turning out articles of that kind in this country. If the road tax on the Ford car were reduced because of the fact that it is made in Ireland, it would give a great deal of encouragement to other firms to start here.

I agree with Deputy Egan in what he said about reducing the tax on stout. I was a little surprised that no reduction was made of the tax on stout. I have no sympathy, and I never had any sympathy, with the whiskey drinkers. But stout is an article of food, and this was proved and admitted here by two very eminent members of the Food Commission when we were discussing the size of the bottles about seven or eight months ago. These two Deputies admitted that when it was under discussion at the Food Commission; that goes to show that stout had come to be regarded as a food. It is a food, especially for quay labourers, and for men working along the quay lines, and persons in similar employment who could not be running home for a cup of tea, or for a cup of Bovril, or something else like that. These people are able to get a bottle of stout which they take with their dinners. Now, if these men were running in for glasses of whiskey the danger would be that they might tumble into the river. For that reason I think it is a pity that the Minister for Finance did not make a reduction in the duty payable on stout. The country is deriving £5 per standard barrel from this much-abused stout. I think if that were reduced by £1, and if this generous firm of Guinness and the very generous firm of Beamish and Crawford would take another £1 per barrel off, it would mean 2d. per pint less in the price of stout to the quay labourer. I am not speaking for the publicans this time. I say keep on the tax on whiskey, and increase the tax on wine if you like. Wine is a stepping stone to the drinking of stout and whiskey.

Now I come back to the dole. I suggest it could be possible that the Government would frame some legislation so that this dole would be used as a subsidy in the case of some employment. That is to say, that the man who is drawing the dole would get it on consideration that he would work for an employer at the difference between the dole and the wages paid in that particular district. Take, for instance, the farmer. If a farmer went to the Labour Exchange and found there a number of men from his own district he ought to be put into the position of saying: "I want a man; you pay him the 15/- a week that you are paying him for doing nothing and I give him 18/-." That would be the difference between the rate paid in the district and the amount he was getting under the dole, whatever the difference was in the wages obtaining in the district. The State would gain by that, and both the farmer and the man drawing the dole would benefit. That would do away with some of the evils of the dole. Perhaps in talking about the dole I am talking outside the radius of the Budget; for that reason I will not go any further, as this is a very doleful story.

I am sorry that the Minister for Finance did not put a tax on manufactured flour and leave in the wheat free. In my district of East Cork— and the wise men come from the East —there are four flour mills fully equipped with modern scientific machinery. Now some of these flour mills are going idle. You will one day read in the paper that these flour mills in Midleton are shut down, and some weeks later you will see rejoicings because the Midleton mills have again been opened. If the Minister for Finance taxed all flour coming in, it would give much-needed employment, and it would be a benefit to our friends the farmers and also give them an inducement to grow more wheat. I am hoping that one of those days, when the Shannon scheme has been developed, that every farmer will have his own mill. Each man will be able to manufacture his own flour from his own wheat. This home-grown wheat would make splendid food for the people. Scientists and food experts say that all the good is taken out of the food in the by-products, such as bran and pollard. I am sure Deputy Gorey would do well if he used some of that bran and pollard. I am sure it would improve his health, and that it would improve my health. I see Deputy Sir James Craig looking rather surprised, but I am sure he knows better than anybody else that it would improve me, that is if I need improvement.

With regard to the tax on boots, as far as we in Cork are concerned, I am satisfied it is a boon rather than a tax, and I hope that a tax will be put on all wearing apparel. I am not able to describe wearing apparel in detail. I leave that to the gentlemen who are better acquainted with these things. As a result of these taxes you will have new factories springing up in the country very soon. The farmers will then realise the truth of the old song that used to be sung in the days when we used to have the Land League banners going round the country, "We can shear our own sheep and we'll wear it." Let them wear it.

Mr. GOREY

The Farmers' Party welcome this Budget because it is as good as they expected. Perhaps, in a few particulars, it is a little better. I do not say that we welcome all its provisions. There are some provisions that we certainly welcome, but there are others that we object to. One form of taxation is maintained, and in fact extended, which we object to. The provision in this Budget that we specially welcome is the increase in the Agricultural Grant. Other Deputies appreciated the fall in the income tax, but to the agricultural community the increase in the Agricultural Grant is more acceptable. The reduction in income tax will benefit some people engaged in agriculture—not very many, comparatively speaking—but the increase in the Agricultural Grant will come home to everybody engaged in agriculture. It has been said from the benches on my right that the farmers have been the pampered pets of legislation—that they are getting everything. It might be well, therefore, to explain how this Agricultural Grant came to be given.

In 1898 legislation was introduced at Westminster, regulating the incidence of taxation in this country. Up to that time the rates on agricultural holdings were paid half and half by the landlord and the tenant. Under the Act of 1898 the whole burden was transferred to the tenant, and at the same time the provision of the Agricultural Grant was included. That was not introduced as a benefit to the tenants, but to relieve the landlords of their burden. At that time the rates in agricultural districts were about 1/10 in the £. In many counties at the present time the rates are 10/- in the £. In England in recent years the Agricultural Grant has been increased by 75 per cent That had to be done in the national interest, in order to preserve the agricultural industry in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That was not done here. This is the first attempt made to increase the Grant here. In England agriculturists are not in anything like the same position as they are here. The majority of the farms in England are very large, while in this country they are very small. As a general rule farmers in Great Britain hold from 300 to 1,000 acres of land. We know what the average here is.

The proposed increase in the agricultural grant is not spoon-feeding, as some people imagine The increase does not come up to what the English Government thought was requisite in the circumstances for their agricultural population. The increase, however, will be a great boon to farmers and we welcome it. If the present conditions do not improve, we look forward in the next Budget to having the grant increased to the British level. I hope there will be no necessity for that. I hope conditions will improve—they would need to.

Comparison has been made by many Deputies between the remissions granted on certain importations and the impositions placed on others. It seemed to end there. Reference has been made to the taxation that has been taken off tea and sugar and transferred to other commodities. No reference, however, has been made to the burden of taxation which the country has to bear and its ability to carry it. Few countries in Europe are in the unenviable position of this country in respect to the taxation which we have to bear. In proportion to the population, we are in the unfortunate position probably of having to carry a greater national expenditure than any other country. Therefore, we naturally have more room for reduction in our national expenditure than those countries which are economically run and which have not to bear a large amount of non-recurrent expenditure due to disturbances or other causes. Very little comparison has been made between the weight of our burden and our ability to carry it. The time has come when everyone who takes an interest in the country must consider this question of the ability of the nation to bear the burden at present imposed on it. We are not able to carry this load of taxation. The estimated expenditure of 25 millions for the current year is more than this nation is able to bear—certainly more than it will be able to bear in future years. The best brains of the country would be well employed in finding means, consistent with efficiency, of reducing this annual burden. A committee similar to the Geddes Committee has been suggested as a means of reducing our national expenditure.

I have heard references in the Lobby and outside by Deputies on the Government benches to the 22,000 or 23,000 civil servants employed here. The number is certainly alarming. In the streets of Dublin you can hear people saying that officials are tripping over each other in many of the Government departments. I am inclined to believe there is a considerable amount of truth in that. It needs probing and sifting to the bottom. I think the time has come seriously to consider a demand that was made 6 or 12 months ago for the appointment of a committee, with a view to seeing if the national expenditure could not be reduced, and the overstaffing of the departments remedied. This country is not able to carry an annual expenditure of twentyfive millions or anything like these figures. National expenditure might very easily be reduced by from five to ten millions. Like other members of the community, our statesmen in recent years have been in the habit of thinking in very much larger terms than in pre-war years. Individuals who used to think in terms of shillings and pounds began to think in terms of "fivers" and hundreds, and have pretty well remained in that position. Even as individuals we have not curtailed our spending propensities. We are still spending more than we can afford and our statesmen seem to think in terms of millions when, perhaps, they should be thinking in terms of thousands. Our statesmen, as well as every other class in the country, have got to change that outlook. The present system of spending money indiscriminately must be remedied.

I will just mention one item which was referred to in the newspapers—the tax on tobacco. I will not make any suggestion to the Minister but call his attention to a few facts that came to my knowledge recently. I am not a smoker but I have been informed that it is a common thing for some young men to smoke cigarettes to the value of one shilling or one and sixpence in a day. That means that from 7/- to 10/- weekly is spent in that way. It is also said that some of the ladies are very little behind the men in this matter. This question is a very important one, as every penny spent on foreign-grown tobacco goes out of the country. Tobacco is not a food and it is not grown in Ireland. We manufacture, perhaps, the raw material into the finished article in a few places, but the vast proportion of the tobacco that comes into the country is unfinished and is grown in other countries. What these imports represent in money I cannot say. What does the medical profession say on this question so far as it affects the future of the race, especially if some young women smoke up to 10/- worth of cigarettes in a week? What will be the effect on the national physique? These facts deserve national attention.

If I were to choose between a reduced tax on drink and a reduced tax on tobacco, I would unquestionably favour drink. It may be said that drink, to some extent at least, is an article of food when taken in moderation. I do not think the same can be said of tobacco. Making a comparison of these two important items in the incidence of our taxation, I would certainly favour drink as against tobacco. To my mind taxation should favour drink rather than tobacco. It is regrettable to have to say that, but under the circumstances I think that even Deputy Johnson will agree it is justified.

The Farmers' Party object to the retention of the duties that were imposed last year, especially those on boots and on some other articles. We opposed these duties last year and called for divisions on them. Some of the Deputies who spoke against these duties walked out when it came to a division. I hope they will not leave this year when these proposals are challenged. We strongly object to the new duties, especially those it is proposed to impose on ready made clothing. Deputy Daly and Deputy MacBride referred to the fact that there is to be no duty on some tweeds that come into this country. Is it the policy of the Government; to allow in foreign "shoddy" and to tax the finished article? The better class of material used in this country is largely manufactured in Ireland. Of course, some of this class of material comes in, especially for ladies clothing, and there will be no tax on it, although it will be worn by better class people who can afford to pay a tax. On the other hand, the ready-made clothing that is largely used by the poorer people will be taxed.

It is said it is going to give us increased employment. Deputy Johnson gave us some figures yesterday which he confesses to-day are not quite right, but at the same time he made a case, if anyone has made a case, for the imposition of those new duties. It has not convinced us. I think still that in principle and practice this is a bad imposition. I think it will work out badly. The principle, first of all, is bad. The classes of people it is going to hit mostly in this country, the people who, without any doubt, are being asked to subsidise this imposition, are those who can least afford it. As I said, our opposition to this imposition of new duties is largely on principle. The more I can get in touch with labour here in connection with things that matter, the more I am losing confidence. I have very little confidence in the response we are going to get to this gesture, which aims at helping industry.

Nothing would please on these benches, and please me in particular, more than to see an honest response to the gesture that has been made to the industrial community. Nothing would please us more than an honest and whole-hearted response to this test that has been put up to the nation, and put up principally to those engaged in the subsidised industries. I hope that the latter realise it, and that the people engaged in industry of every description in this country, and especially those in the subsidised industries, are going to respond by doing their duty, as the people of this country are going to do their duty in paying for the subsidy. Manufacturers are expected to do their duty, and I hope they realise their responsibility, and realise that what is going to happen is a test. It is a test for the future, and I hope the response will be what is expected. Any duty like this is derived from public money, whether it be in the shape of taxes or otherwise, and the public is entitled to make a strict examination into what is being done, and what return is being given for the people's money. They are going to pay for it, and those who are paying for it are entitled to see that the return they get is equal to the return that would be given in any of the other countries engaged in industry. Output should be insisted on according to the world's standard of output. I should not like to see any other attitude than that, or to see any Party or any individual in the State taking any other attitude, because it would mean a confession of race inferiority, race degradation, and race dishonesty. It is up to every element of the nation to respond. We oppose this tariff, but as we have it we will insist, as far as we can, that a proper response is given to this gesture. This is a really great test, but if it fails, let those responsible for its failure bear the blame. I hope our opposition to this impost will improve the atmosphere and the attitude of those to be engaged in those industries, and that it will bring them to a right frame of mind, as compared with other people in the world engaged in the same industry. We must all live on a common standard, or, owing to the survival of the fittest, we will be supplanted by another race. If our opposition to this impost will bring men to realise what is expected from those who are going to be engaged in the industries, then our opposition will not be in vain.

I think, too, in discussing this Budget Deputy Figgis touched on a subject which might well deserve a great deal of consideration. He referred to a flat rate reduction in income tax, and he referred also to the different schedules. I think anybody who will compare the position now with that of seven, eight, or ten years ago, when the War was on and big profits were being made, must look at the question now from a different stand-point. Those schedules were framed then, and the same system has obtained since. I think we should have a revision of those schedules. An income then may mean a loss now to a good many people. The purchasing power of that income may be less but the same income is there. Especially in the schedules relating to agricultural land, what would be income then is loss now. I ask the Minister to pay attention to that, and I think Deputy Figgis has done a service in referring to those schedules.

That brings the agriculturists up against it. This subsidy is all right; 54/- a ton is the price given to the agriculturist in return for this huge subsidy. When this subsidy is exhausted, after the three years, what, I wonder, will the price be to the grower and how will that price compare with what he could get for any other crop he might grow? Of course, as I say, we have not our minds made up. We have considerable doubt, but it is well to have this thing decided, and certainly the Government are putting up enough to test the matter anyhow. We welcome this test.

This Budget has imposed taxes on a good many of the things we do not produce. There are a few things we do produce and no mention has been made of them. I suggest an imposition on some of those articles would mean much more to the country, would be a much bigger help and would reach a good many more people than the impositions we have. Does anyone mean to suggest to me that an imposition on foreign bacon would not reach and benefit more people than this tax on readymade clothing? How many will this benefit directly, and how many people would a tax on foreign bacon and foreign butter benefit?

Mr. DAVIN

What is the view of the Farmers' Party on that question?

Mr. GOREY

Mr. A. BYRNE

The remarks that I have to make will be very brief, indeed. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget statement yesterday, said that, after the present Budget, this Government will not break any fresh ground in the matter of protective tariffs before the General Election. In view of that statement, I wish to draw his attention to a small industry in Dublin that may be blotted out entirely by the time the General Election comes, and that is the industry for brush manufacture. As a member of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, up to a few months ago, I was in the habit of examining the returns of imports, and, next to foreign bottles, I found that foreign brushes formed the largest item in these returns. I am aware that to-day there are at least two hundred brush-makers idle in the city of Dublin. In Dublin we have ten factories, nine small ones and one large factory, making brushes, and I think there are two in Cork. Had there been a small duty of from 10 to 15 per cent. put on these foreign brushes coming in I am satisfied that the two-hundred brush-makers now idle in the city of Dublin would be in employment, and that the Exchequer would be relieved of the charge of paying them unemployment benefit.

The brass foundry industry in Dublin is another one that is severely handicapped. Last year, I asked the Minister for Finance if he would grant some relief to this industry. I drew his attention to the fact that all the lacquered and brass goods which come into this country give no employment here. The small article with the brass electrical fittings, which Deputies see there on the table in front of them, probably came from Germany, and entered this country free of charge. If a Dublin factory attempted to manufacture an article of that kind it would have to pay duty, amounting to a shilling or two shillings, on the lacquer that goes on it, despite the fact that the finished lacquered article comes free into this country. The Dublin factory is not allowed to make the article until it first pays duty on the lacquer that is used in its manufacture. There is another point in connection with this to which I would invite the Minister's attention. I would appeal to him to allow the spirit, which is used for manufacturing purposes in this industry, to come free into this country. I am not sure as to the correctness of the figures, but I am given to understand that a duty from £2 to £3 per gallon is charged on the lacquer spirit coming in here. That duty alone imposes a dreadfully severe handicap on the brass foundry industry, with the result that those engaged in it find it almost impossible to cope with the wholesale dumping of German and American goods in this city. These are two items that I wish to raise on the Budget. The Budget has been a great effort on the part of the Minister to do good for every section of the community, and I may say that it is a Budget that is appreciated by every section of the community.

The Minister, in his statement yesterday, referred to the woollen industry as an old-fashioned one, and said it was fairly efficient. He added that it would, no doubt, weather the storm without assistance. In saying that, he recognised that there is a storm to weather, as far as that industry is concerned. I am informed to-day, half, if not more, of the woollen mills in the country have their employees on half-time, and I cannot understand why that is so. The Minister, when bringing in a tariff of fifteen per cent. on blankets and rugs, which are not made largely in this country, and which will undoubtedly be felt as a tax by every class, should, I think, have extended it by giving some preference to Irish tweeds. If he had done so, the tariff, I think, would have produced a good return. As a result of it, the people engaged in the industry would get full-time employment, and I am satisfied that the industry would be able to turn out supplies to meet all the requirements of the people here. I hope that before the General Election comes round the Minister will be able to do something for this industry before the people engaged in it are compelled to come to him and ask for assistance under the Trade Facilities Act. As far as I see, the industries that are struggling and making great efforts to keep going, without approaching the Minister for assistance, are some of the oldest in the country, and I am sorry to say they are getting very little support. As regards the old age pensions, I had expected that this year would have seen a restoration of the shilling, and in some cases sums varying from four to five shillings, which were taken off the old age pensioners. I hope that before the General Election——

Mr. GOREY

Why the General Election?

Mr. BYRNE

I am using the Minister's own words. I hope, as I say, in the words of the Minister, that before the next General Election, the Minister will see his way to restore the shilling that was taken off the old age pensioners, and that he will also remove the penalty clause on thrift as far as old age pensions are concerned. If an old tradesman with thirty years' service in any firm and who, at the same time, was a member of his trade union for the same number of years, gets a pension of seven or eight shillings a week as a result of the faithful service that he gave to the firm in which he was employed, or if he gets six or seven shillings a week by way of pension from his trade union, that is taken into consideration when calculating his assets for pensionable purposes.

I am aware that there has been a demand made by many trade unions for the withdrawal of that clause, and I hope the Minister will see his way to withdraw it, because it debars poor old men from getting a full pension. There is a class of men who are very hard hit at the present moment. These are the men engaged in the iron industry: engineers, fitters, boiler-makers and ship-builders. I think the Minister ought to consider the wisdom of imposing a small protective tariff in the case of this industry. In my opinion such a tariff would bring considerable relief to these people. At the present time I do not think there is any industry which is so hard hit as the iron industry, or one which, apart from unskilled labour, has such a large number of unemployed. It is a pity, certainly to see such a large quantity of manufactured iron goods being dumped in the city of Dublin while these men are walking about idle. I was glad to observe that the Minister is making an effort to revive the bedstead industry. I think he ought to extend the tariff to all iron and brass manufactured work coming into this country. If he were to do so, it would, I believe, help to provide much-needed employment for large numbers of men. On the whole, I congratulate the Minister on his Budget proposals.

Mrs. COLLINS O'DRISCOLL

My contribution to this discussion, on the Budget, will be very brief, but, as the only lady Deputy who has taken her seat in the Dáil, on behalf of my sex I congratulate the Minister on the excellent Budget that he has brought in, and I express my appreciation of what he has done for the women of Ireland. By the abolition of the tax on tea, and by the remission of the tax on sugar, he has bestowed a wonderful benefit on the housekeepers of this country and a benefit which will help them materially in balancing their weekly budgets. In this way, I know I am only expressing the feeling of the great majority of the women of this country in thanking the Minister for Finance for the provisions of the Budget. A great deal of discussion has arisen out of the 15 per cent. tax on ready-made clothing, and a great many of my own sex have told me that it was my duty to protest against the imposition of that tax. I do not look at this from a small angle, but I look upon it from the bigger angle. I look upon it from the viewpoint that Deputy Johnson put before us. Even if this 15 per cent. tax costs us a little more in the way of clothing, surely we ought to be prepared to make sacrifices for the general good of the community.

I cannot understand how it is that the Farmer Deputies are against the imposition of these tariffs. Now, I am speaking advisedly, and speaking as a person who has great knowledge of the farming community of this country, I do not see any class that is likely to benefit more by the imposition of these taxes than the farming class. And when I speak of the farming class I do not mean the farmers as farmers but the families of the farmers. Many farmers in this country have families averaging from six to twelve in number. Some of these families run into two figures, like my own. I am speaking now of the average farmer, the amount of whose land is not more than 30 or 40 acres. In a family of that kind there is only a living for two. The son gets the farm, and the fortune that the bride brings in is given to one of the daughters of the family, so that the other members of the family, 5 or 6 or 8 or 10, are left without anything, though they should be as dear to the farmer as the two who are supported out of the farm, and there is nothing for them but to emigrate. I say this 15 per cent. tax will open up new avenues of employment, because there is no doubt but factories will be started as a result of this tax.

Again, take the tax on furniture. I welcome this tax. I may have to pay a little more for a table or a mirror, but if it gives employment—and these things will give employment to the farmers' sons, I do not mean to the one who inherits the farm, but to the others —I am more than satisfied. I know carpenters down in Cork, where Deputy Daly speaks of the excellent workmanship, who make excellent furniture. I have seen furniture made by carpenters 20 or 30 years ago, and it is as good to-day as the day it was made. There are carpenters there at present who could make furniture as good as these men but they are idle because they cannot get a market for their work; they cannot compete with the foreign goods that are sold in the shops, and these men who could turn out excellent work have to go about idle. In this way I consider the Budget is a step in the right direction.

I represent a constituency that will, perhaps, be harder hit by some of these taxes than any other, but the people I have been talking to are quite prepared to pay more when they find it is for the general good of the community. What good is it for a family to be able to buy ready-made clothing free of any protective tax if several members of that family are unemployed on account of the dumping of foreign goods in this country? There is another reason why I welcome the tax. It will make people make their own clothes, or if they are unable to make them, it will make them employ people who are able to make them and make them properly, not like some of those ready-made articles on the market to-day.

There is ready-made clothing put on the market which could not be produced so cheaply except as the result of sweated conditions and the objectionable practice of the dumping of foreign goods. After 25 years of technical education we should be able to make our own clothes, and if the Minister for Finance has done no other act than that of compelling some of the women of this country to make clothes for themselves and their families and their husbands, I think he deserves a vote of thanks from the women of Ireland. In the days of my youth it was regarded as a qualification for matrimony that a woman should be able to make her husband's shirts. I should like to know how many women in the country can make them now. One of the results of this Budget will be that people will become alive to their own interests and will make clothing for their families or employ other people to make them. I am acquainted with dressmakers who say: "What chance have we of making a living when we cannot obtain sufficient work for half a week with all these ready-made clothes coming in?" It is absolutely false economy to buy these clothes, and I think the Minister will inculcate economy by the introduction of this Budget.

There is one matter in defence of my sex that I must refer to before I sit down. We have had examples in this Dáil of the metaphorical language—I will not say the language of exaggeration—that Deputy Gorey usually indulges in. The impression may go abroad from something he said that the women of Ireland smoke cigarettes to the amount of 10/- per week per woman.

Mr. GOREY

I did not say anything of the kind.

Mrs. COLLINS O'DRISCOLL

I did not say that the Deputy did. What I did say was that his statement was calculated to give that impression. I do not think it is very relevant to the debate on the Budget, but Deputy Gorey introduced it and I have to answer back. If there are such cases they are only exceptions. I do not believe that there are 100 women in the Saorstát who smoke cigarettes to the extent of 10/- per week.

Mr. GOREY

To what extent?

Mrs. COLLINS O'DRISCOLL

I do not know. I never smoked a cigarette in my life, and could not if I tried. In conclusion, may I say that, to my mind —and I will just assume the mantle of prophecy for the moment—at the next general election any party, either in the Dáil or in the Seanad, that goes to the country having as a plank in its programme the abolition of these taxes, will not be returned again to the Dáil or the Seanad. I thank the Minister for Finance for his excellent Budget.

Sitting suspended at 6.30 and resumed at 7.15 p.m., theCEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I had intended to congratulate the last speaker for her splendid speech here this evening, and also on the fact that she was such a splendid representative of the women of Ireland. However, she is not here at the moment. On the whole, I am extremely well satisfied with the Budget. I think the Minister has done a wise thing in reducing income tax to the extent that he has reduced it. I think it is very well recognised that he could have gone no further than he has gone at the present time, owing to the financial condition of the country. I am sorry, however, that he still retains the super-tax. I am still of the opinion, as I was last year, that there are people who would come here and spend their money—very rich people—if they were getting relief from super-tax by living in Ireland.

With regard to the duty on motor cars, I said some years ago practically all that has been said in that connection during this discussion. I pointed out that it was not a protective duty in any sense; that it was a prohibitive duty. I was surprised to find the Minister for Finance repeating what, I think, he said before, namely, that the use of motors is a luxury. It can in no sense be regarded as a luxury as far as the medical profession is concerned. I am extremely sorry for my colleagues who are practising in the country and whose incomes are, perhaps, a good deal smaller than the incomes of those who are practising in the cities. I am extremely sorry that those men are still made to pay such a heavy duty. On the £100 car they have to pay £33 extra, or on a £200 English car they have to pay £44 or £45 extra. That is a heavy matter. It was pointed out by some other Deputy here that, in addition to the duty, the carriage over of the car has to be paid for, and, when the car is here, we have to pay a pretty heavy tax on the horsepower. In addition to all that you have to insure the car. If motors were a luxury, there could be nothing said against the tax; but I maintain that a motor is anything but a luxury for a doctor who is practising over a radius of ten miles. It is in no sense a luxury; it is an absolute necessity that the doctor should have a motor car.

I am sure every housewife in the country will welcome the abolition of the tax upon tea, and the deduction of the tax upon sugar. As far as the poor people are concerned, it must, and it will, be a tremendous relief to them. On the occasion when we discussed the tax on boots last year, I spoke in relation to an aspect of it that struck me most forcibly. I thought it would be a very severe and heavy tax on the poor woman in the country who has five or six children travelling to school, perhaps a distance of two or three miles. To my mind, there was no question that this tax would not increase the cost of the boots. Deputy Sears—I do not think he is here—assured us on that occasion that the cost of the boots would not be increased by the impost of 15 per cent. of duty. I was in more of a quandary, before Deputy Daly spoke this afternoon, as to the actual state of affairs with regard to what this duty has done. We want to know the truth. I am in no sense opposed to the duty if it is doing any real good. I am opposed to it if it is merely going to be used as a revenue tax. If it is going to encourage industries in the country, I would welcome it, as I said I would last year. At the present moment I know it is still in an experimental stage, and one cannot argue too much at this juncture.

A gentleman who paid me a visit yesterday told me he had come up from Carlow, and that the manufacturing establishment there was practically closed down. He said that the owner of the establishment had told him that she could get practically no sale for her boots. I came here with that statement in my mind, and I intended to mention it, but Deputy Daly has changed my opinion to some extent when he tells me that in Cork the amount that has been paid to workers has been up to £4,000 a month. I think that is what the Deputy said.

Mr. DALY

Yes.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

We only want to get to the truth with regard to this matter, and if that is a fact—I have no doubt it is when Deputy Daly says so —some of the objections I had intended to raise with regard to the continuance of this tax have been removed. I take up the same attitude with regard to the duty on ready-made clothing. With regard to this, I feel in the same way as I did towards boots. I believe that 15 per cent. is really of no use to protect the industry in this country. I feel, with regard to the impost on ready-made clothing in particular, that as far as England is concerned, the production of ready-made clothes has reached such a high state of perfection that the whole working of the system there, the amount that they are able to produce, and the way in which ready-made clothing is produced, all conduce to make them able to put forward articles at such a price that a 15 per cent. duty will not prevent our people from purchasing. I may be quite wrong in regard to this; I am only arguing as far as my limited intelligence goes. It seems to me that if you want to protect the industry of making clothes, you will have to put a higher tax on it than what is suggested by the Minister.

There is a matter that suggested itself to me as soon as the Minister had spoken of the tax upon personal clothing. There must be very great changes made at the Customs' frontier if this duty is not going to be rendered almost null and void. At the present moment at Kingstown there is very little accommodation for any examination of articles coming into the country with passengers. When one comes to think of the enormous amount of labour that would be entailed in the careful examination of all the luggage that is brought in by visitors to this country, one can see that there must be a tremendous addition, not only to the accommodation there, but to the number of Customs' officers. In particular, I was told that if the weather is bad and if it is raining, there will be a tremendous destruction of personal property by the opening up of the trunks and the leaving of them open until they are all examined.

I desire to refer to another point, namely, that I am surprised that the Minister has not done something to protect the Irish tweed industry. I think that it would be very proper and very natural to impose a duty upon cloth brought into this country in order that our own industries here, in the way of manufacture of tweeds, should be encouraged as far as possible. Irish tweeds, the Donegal tweed, for instance, have all established themselves at the present time in a certain very favourable position in the country. If these were protected, to some extent at all events, I think there would be a great trade expansion in that direction.

I was particularly glad that some relief has been given to the farmers. Last year I pointed out the conditions under which farmers send milk up to the city. They were selling their milk at perhaps from 9d. to 1/1 per gallon, and they found that the consumers in Dublin were paying at the rate of 2/4 to 2/8 per gallon. The same thing I pointed out applied in the case of potatoes. Potatoes were being sold by the farmers at from £2 to £3 per ton, whereas they were being distributed here at least at £10 per ton. The price has gone up this year and the farmer is perhaps getting a little more. At all events the consumer has to pay a great deal more. I think, therefore, that for the help given to the agricultural community we should all feel thankful. There is no use in repeating that if we do not encourage the agricultural industry, there is not much use trying to encourage other industries in the country.

Several points have been alluded to by various speakers, and more or less with personal reference to myself. I hope, sir, that you will not think I am proceeding beyond the limit of proper discussion, but Deputy Daly in your absence made some reference to the question of duty upon stout. He wanted at least £1 taken off the duty on stout, in order, as he said, to reduce the price of stout. My contention is that in Cork they do not need anything of that sort, because stout is sold in Cork at 6d. per bottle whereas we pay 8d. per bottle in Dublin. The price of a pint of stout in Dublin is 1/-, whereas in Cork the consumer only pays 9d.

Mr. DALY

Honest Cork.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

Honest Cork. At all events the fact remains, and it is a rather serious matter for the brewers of Cork, that in order to compete with the local produce, Guinness's stout is sold in Cork at a considerably less price than what is paid in Dublin here. I am not quite sure that if £1 were taken off the duty in stout the consumer would benefit entirely by it. Deputy Gorey alluded to the use of tobacco. I have very little experience as to what ladies consume in the way of tobacco, but I will say this, that as far as the use of tobacco is concerned, the use of it by boys and young girls is to be reprobated in every possible way. I think there is no question that the growth of the young is greatly retarded by the abnormal use of tobacco. Before sitting down I would like to congratulate the Minister upon what I consider an extremely fair Budget, and on the efforts he has made to relieve taxation in many ways that the people will be greatly gratified by.

Mr. D'ALTON

I wish to join with other Deputies in congratulating the Minister on his Budget. Perhaps I do so in a better spirit than I did last year, when I regarded the Budget as being tentative. I took the slight form of protection that he brought forward at that time as an indication and as a happy augury of what his Budget this year might be. I am pleased that I have not been disappointed in my hopes. I feel confident that by the end of this financial year, when the Minister will be introducing his new Budget, he will find these additional tariffs have been a success. I feel confident that the form of protection that he introduced last year, when it will have an opportunity of being tested, will prove a success. All businessmen know that it must get a period of two or three years to prove its success. By that time it will not be a question for the Government of saying, or insisting on carrying out, what the Minister has suggested, that no fresh import duty will be made. It will be the cry throughout the country that the Minister should be asked, in order to develop other industries, to bring in further protective measures for the country. Much has been said from the farmers' benches as regards this question of protection, but I fear that they do not look at it from the correct angle. I fear that they have not had sufficient time to consider the whole matter. Undoubtedly, the past year has been an extremely bad one for the farmer, between atmospheric conditions and the general depression in trade, but these conditions were applicable to all Europe, and to America, and they have, perhaps, been aggravated to some extent by the troubles in this country and by the heavy burden of taxation brought on the country for various reasons.

Mrs. Collins O'Driscoll, in the first instance, referred to the families of farmers. We all know that the young men and girls in the cities, not alone those who own houses, but those who are apprentices, are sons and daughters of farmers. We also know that it is impossible for farmers to retain all members of their families at home. Let us hope that there will be a living for every farmer's son and daughter in Ireland and that it is not going to be a question of rearing and educating them at considerable cost and then shipping them, as they ship their cattle, to other countries. I feel certain that about the last thing that any parent would wish is to part with his children and never see them again. It is a bad sign for the prosperity of the country, and it is a very poor hope for that freedom which the Irish people have secured, if it means that their children will have to leave their own land and seek their living elsewhere. That is an aspect of the question which the farmers ought to take more into account. Speaking for a large number of farmers, especially small farmers, progressive men, I know it is their desire, because they have expressed it to me, to see industries starting in the various country towns and villages. Numbers of these men are calm, cool, thinking men, and some of them years ago had six or seven cows giving a return of six hundred gallons of milk. I have seen their returns for last year, and it would surprise the Minister to know that each cow has given an average of over a thousand gallons. One cow has gone to an extraordinary figure and has beaten the celebrated Swedish cow in her yield. There is an average of 1,230 gallons of milk each from three cows. That farmer is earnestly hoping that the Government is going to start industries, and he is a man with four or five children, two of whom are on the land. In Ireland we are at present cursed with the dole, which produces nothing but idleness. That is a sign that things in this country are not what they should be.

If any form of protection would tend to employ the youth of the country in industries in which they could work and earn their living, I think it would be infinitely better for the farmers than the spending of a million and a half pounds for the relief of unemployment as was done last year. It would make the people industrious, give them the spirit of industry, and relieve the farmer of that burden which he has unjustly to bear. I wish the farmer would keep that in mind. Otherwise the dole will be there, because we cannot under any conditions see the workingmen of this country left hungry because there is no employment for them. There is no use in saying that the dole must cease, because it cannot cease while workingmen and their wives and families are hungry. If you cannot give them employment you must help them to live or, at least, to exist. Bringing it down to a low level, you are bound as common citizens to see that they do not perish of hunger. Therefore, the dole will continue until employment is found. When it is found there may be as I think Deputy Gorey said, those who may not be inclined to work, but steps can be taken to deal with them, as they have been dealt with to my knowledge in other countries. If you have industries in this country, a large amount of money will be spent by the people engaged in them, and the money spent in such a non-productive agency as distribution will cease. There are a number of distributors placing the produce of the factories and industries of other countries throughout Ireland, while men and women who should be producing these products are standing idle here. The distributor is very little value to the country, and although he may distribute commodities which may not be produced as cheaply at home, it would be found that if these commodities were produced here, even at a little higher price, the ratepayers would benefit. There is, perhaps, an idea in the minds of some Deputies that Ireland, being principally agricultural, cannot get back to her original position. I think that on the last occasion when the Budget was introduced here, I referred to the state of the country under Grattan's Parliament and mentioned that the population then was more than double what it is now, and that we were able to consume all the butter, bacon and eggs produced in Ireland.

I would refer you to the period of 1878, when Davitt and Parnell took up the land movement. They made an effort before they went to America in 1879 to form the Land League there to end the dual ownership of land in Ireland, and end the losses, sufferings and wrongs it inflicted. They brought forward the question of peasant proprietorship in the Mansion House, at which the leaders of the Agrarian movement of Ireland were present. After dealing with the population on the land, and the question of peasant proprietorship, they laid down, as item 4 of their programme, legislation for the encouragement of Irish industries, the development of Ireland's natural resources, and the abolition, as far as possible, of grazing, the reclamation of waste lands, the protection of Irish fisheries, and the improvement of peasant dwellings. That was in 1878, and in 1879, at the great Boston Convention, Michael Davitt—who certainly, to my mind, with the help of Parnell and others, did more for the Irish farmers by ending landlordism, in the fight against which he gave his life—laid down that programme. He made the farmers of Ireland independent, and he made them to realise that the land they tilled was their own, and that the wealth it produced was not to be spent in debauchery in foreign countries. The farmers' position had been improved by the various Land Acts. He was the father of all that movement. If you had not these Land Acts you would not have had the Sinn Fein movement. If landlordism had not been abolished in Ireland you would have no Sinn Fein movement, and you, gentlemen, would not be in the Dáil to-day.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must address me.

Mr. D'ALTON

I am sorry. I will not repeat it. Davitt, at that great meeting of ten thousand Irishmen, workingmen and others, spoke, and it was resolved to support the Irish farmers in the movement to own their own land, with the aid of the Irish leaders, and "that while prepared to aid the Irish people to the utmost we desire to place on record our conviction that while the interest of manufacturing and mining industries, and commerce, are protected by restrictive legislation, poverty must remain the normal condition of the Irish people until they realise the power to regulate and protect their interests." Under the Treaty you have got that power. It has made you free to take what steps you find necessary to protect the interests of this country, industrially as well as agriculturally. We cannot dissociate the two. We cannot think of one part of the nation without thinking of the other, especially when we recognise that the workers, the apprentices, and the traders, in the towns, including many of the mechanics, are farmers' sons. They belong to the soil, and their interests should be the interests of the farmers.

I would ask the farming community to look at this matter from a broad point of view. I do not agree with Deputy Gorey that we cannot at the moment be justified in having confidence in the workers. Many of the workers perhaps have given reason for want of confidence, and so have many of the employers who have been sweaters. They traded on the lifeblood of the workers and their wives and children. I know these men, and they are known in this country. That, unfortunately, has been the history of Ireland in the past. There have been faults on both sides, but this I say with a life knowledge as an employer of working men, that I have found the majority of these men to be honest and straight. I have met an occasional rogue, and an occasional Bolshevist, but I refuse to condemn the working men of Ireland because a certain number of them are idlers who believe in getting property they have no right to. We know that many in Ireland have got property they have no right to, and that many men got labour for which they did not pay. If we keep these facts in mind, if we had better belief in our country, if we believe there should be a better understanding between capital and labour, and try to arrive at an understanding between them, there would be possibilities for the future. I welcome the Budget for the promise that it holds. I do not agree with some of the strictures that have been made. Perhaps it might have been better if the Farmers' Party had approached the Minister for Agriculture. I agree that the people who first deserve protection in this country are those connected with agriculture. I have said that to Deputies on those benches, and I have said it elsewhere. If it is a question of Danish bacon or produce coming from other countries with which we do not trade, and that interferes with the produce of Irish farmers, then the farmers should have considered the matter amongst themselves and discussed the question with the Minister for Agriculture. They have not done so, and they have not decided among themselves about the barley question. Some wanted a tax on barley, and others did not. I would oppose all taxes on wheat, and I am not certain that I would support a tax on flour until the milling industry in Ireland is in a better condition. I believe our mills would be kept going if we only had the proper sense of what we owe to the country. At present the Irish mills, north, south and west, are producing as good flour as is produced in England or America, and I know that, having a life connection with the trade.

I am aware that these mills are turning out as good flour as any that is imported, and I say that if Irishmen were only in any way true to their own idea of developing this country they would give a preference to the produce of these mills, especially when this produce is equal to the imported article, and when they can get it at the same price. If they had acted in this matter as they should, there need never be a question of putting on a 1/- on American or English flour. In addition to that, the farmers would have this advantage, that they would have at their disposal for the feeding of pigs and cattle the offal which they cannot now get from England as the freight is too high in proportion to the value of the article, and it is not brought here.

The statement was made quite distinctly that it was a Budget out of which the farmer had been left high and dry, that nothing was done for the farmer. It even evoked from the Minister for Industry and Commerce the exclamation: "What about the beet duties, and what about the blankets? Will not they assist the farmers?" I think that it will be in the memory of the House that the tone and tenor of the Farmers' speeches of yesterday was to the effect that this Budget did not benefit the farmers.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Did not protect them.

Mr. JOHNSON

Two-thirds, I say, of the population of the country is agricultural, and probably three-fourths of that two-thirds are farmers and their families, who do not employ outside labour. Does the Deputy deny it or doubt it?

Major MYLES

Would not the question of identification come in there also?

Mr. BLYTHE

No, as we would have supervision over the factories and other places here, and could take our own measures. Anything that goes out we do not know what happens to it while it is out of our jurisdiction.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

Deputy Figgis raised a few points regarding income tax and the various schedules. I am inclined to think with him, that a change in the rate of taxation with respect to the various schedules would possibly be advantageous. If the effect would be to throw the heavier burden on those people who do not earn their incomes, and to reduce it upon those who do, I think that a distinct preference should be given to persons who invest their money in the business in which they are engaged as against persons who receive income from landed estate, or from shares and companies in which they have no personal interest except that of deriving a profit. I think there should be a distinction with respect to persons who re-invest savings and profits in industries in which they are actively engaged. I hope, in the course of this discussion, that some of the facts relating to that, and the possibility of revising the present system, will be dealt with.

There is another matter that I think might receive some attention. The President has been particularly interested in the raising of money for housing loans, and I think has been showing some interest in the proposal that some of the wealthier business-houses might put money into housing schemes. It has been suggested, and I think it should be well and favourably considered, if possible, that a distinct remission of income tax should be made where money has been invested in particular schemes which are approved, at low rates of interest, for housing. I think it is, perhaps, analogous to some of the moneys centred in charitics. However, the whole question is one, I think, worthy of consideration, and if the Minister can induce wealthy firms to advance money at low rates of interest, specifically for housing schemes, there should be a remission of income tax upon any interest that accrues.

I think there is a failure in this Budget in respect to agriculture. I have this amount of sympathy with the farmers' complaint that there is need for a direct stimulus, having something like an immediate effect on agricultural production. I do not think that is secured by the £600,000 which is given as an additional agricultural grant. If the effect of the industrial duties is going to stimulate home production in manufactured commodities, that is good, but there is, in my opinion, a more immediate necessity for a stimulation of production directly from the land. I do not think that a mere relief to the farmer is enough. I will support any proposal in the form of a subsidy or guaranteed price or relief from rating —something which gives a direct stimulus to greater productivity. I do not think it is enough to rely on the more or less gradual improvement that will come from the legislation which has recently been passed, or to hope for a quality of produce making a better name and commanding a better price in the market. That will come, but it will be slow. I think that a Government—whatever Government it may be—will be obliged to do something to stimulate production and greater productivity from the land. That may take the form of producing for cattle feeding more barley, oats, or grain of any kind, but I believe it is necessary to stop the reduction in productivity. Everybody is in agreement theoretically that the basis of the whole economy of the country is agriculture. I think that the farmers are right in demanding that something should be done for agriculture. I think that thing to be done must be done by way of a direct stimulus to greater production. The proposal in respect of the sugar beet is undoubtedly in that direction. In my opinion it will have the effect of increasing absolutely the production from the land. I am rather regretful that there is a statement in the Minister's speech to the effect that they have decided to confine the experiment to one factory.

Mr. BLYTHE

For the present I do not say that we shall not have more than one factory, but we are at the very beginning. I said I thought it would be unwise to have more than one factory, until there was further information available as a result of some experience. We have no experience here as to the terms which would be necessary. The best terms we have been able to get anyone to agree to are considerably higher than the terms at which factories have been started in Great Britain.

Mr. JOHNSON

The British have a number of years' experience now, and they are probably in a more favoured position to get better terms from the State side. I am not discussing the terms. I do not know whether they are good or bad, but if they are good or worth the experiment in respect of one factory in one county, I think they are worth the experiment in another county, and perhaps in a third county. It may be very costly to the community, but I think it is only temporarily costly. I think the fact that you are absolutely increasing the national wealth has to be taken into account. Bear in mind that the experiment in one county, in so far as it is an agricultural experiment, is not going to be sufficient to warrant you in saying that it will be equally successful in every other part of the country. I think you have got to take two or three parts of the country before you can be satisfied that the experiment has been successful or is a failure. That was the method of experiment adopted in England. If I remember rightly, there were at least two factories, one in Norfolk and one in Yorkshire, where the experiment was begun, and I hope we have not here the final word in respect to the limitation of the experiment. It is well to find rivalry between two parts of the country, even at this stage, as to the location of the factory. That alone suggests to me that there should be some agreement to extend the experiment beyond the single factory.

Mr. P.J. EGAN

The Deputy has changed his mind since the last meeting of the Farmers' Union.

Mr. O'CONNELL

That is no trouble to him.

Mr. JOHNSON

We are here, I take it, to express our views and it is our responsibility whether we express the views of any organisation behind us or not. We are not asked here to express the views of any organisation behind us. We are rather responsible to the organisation. If I am prepared to take the responsibility of expressing any definite views to the House I am responsible to the House so far as my relations to the House are concerned, and any other organisation I am responsible to can call me over the coals if they desire. I wish Deputy Wilson to avow the same thing, otherwise we are at sea.

Mr. WILSON

Exactly, because while you might be repudiated by people behind you, people here would not understand you were speaking for a dummy. We have made our position perfectly clear. We say we would produce more if certains things were not imported. We say we desire to get all we can out of the land and to produce more, and we look to the removal of everything that is a barrier to our production.

On that I want to point out to the Minister that in this country a tax of £25,000,000 is certainly a barrier upon production and if he would stimulate production and enable us to get in front of the Dane or anyone else, let him see that the taxes levied in this country, both local and central, are reduced, and let him apply to the management of the Government that principle which each individual has to apply to the management of his own affairs. That is the protection that is neglected. We know, and I readily admit, that we are inheritors of a system of Government which was extravagant in the extreme. We were the junior partners in a joint concern where money was looked on as of very little value; but we are in a different position to-day. It has been stated that there are difficulties in the reduction of the staffs in Government departments, but it is in the reduction of these staffs the salvation of the farming industry lies, quite as much as in the retention of tariffs which are put on as a counterpoise to other tariffs. There are several other industries that were quite as well entitled to a tariff as those upon which a tariff has been put. One is the flour industry. I am not advocating a tariff on it. It is said that tariffs are put on to stimulate industry, and I wonder why the Government refused to put a tariff on flour. There are sufficient mills in this country to supply Ireland, or at all events the Free State. We are losing the offals from the importation of flour, and we have to import offals to the extent of £370,000. If the wheat were milled in Ireland we would have these offals at a much cheaper rate, which would incidentally help us in our industry. I am not advocating a tariff on flour, but I am showing the inconsistency with which tariffs have been set up. We import flour to the value of £3,260,000 and because the cry would go up that you were taxing food, the Government had not the pluck to put a tariff on imported flour and aid agriculture incidentally.

Mr. HEWAT

There seems to be great productivity about this Budget.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Of new views.

Mr. WILSON

It would be impossible for me now to go back on all the suggestions which have been put forward with a view to this country being lifted up. I will just speak for a moment on the question of sugar beet. It looks a very entrancing and flourishing proposition, but when you begin to examine it closely, the whole idea seems foolish. Why do I say those things? I know that you can produce sugar in Africa and buy it on the farms a thousand miles from Natal at 14/- a cwt. You are giving here a tariff or a subsidy of 23/- for an article that is produced there at 14/- per cwt. I am not speaking through my hat. I am speaking commonsense. If you look at the price of Tate's cubes in Liverpool, you will find that the highest quality of sugar is selling at 31/-.

Mr. EGAN

Is it beet sugar?

Mr. WILSON

I do not care what sugar it is, whether it is sugar-cane or anything else. I know anyhow that you can get unrefined sugar at 17/- in Liverpool. Here you are going to give it a subsidy for a period of ten years. It may be the right policy, perhaps, but those are all considerations which the general taxpayers in the country ought to look to. As a farmers' representative, I am delighted that we are going to have a new industry. I hope it will succeed, and I hope that in the course of a few years, when it is self-supporting, we will get other industries to follow suit. But there are considerations which I am surprised the business-men have not taken up; I am surprised they have not informed the Dáil what these subsidies mean in essence. I think I have said sufficient to make clear the position of the farmers. We hope, and I am quite satisfied in believing, that no better Budget could have been brought out in the circumstances. A remission of one shilling in income tax, a subsidy of £600,000 for local rates, and then this question of a sugar-beet industry, is a sufficiently broad gesture on the part of the Government, and an indication that it is doing something to help us. I agree that, under the circumstances, what has been done is very good. But the real thing to be tackled is the overhauling of the expenses of the Government, and the reduction of these barriers which, in their operation, are so antagonistic to progress on the land.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

There was a time during the speech of the last, Deputy when I though I would start by congratulating Deputy Johnson on having got a new convert. Candidly, I do not know now whether I can congratulate him. Candidly, I do not know whether Deputy Wilson is of the opinion and is glad that the Government is undertaking a foolish project by starting the beet industry or not. I do not know whether he is undertaking that attitude on his own behalf or on behalf of the Farmers' Party. I do not know whether he is in favour of free trade. There, again, I do not know whether he is speaking for himself or the Farmers' Party, or whether he is such a complete convert to the views that Deputy Johnson expressed that he is in favour of a tax on oats, flour, bacon, butter, barley or, as he succinctly expressed it, everything.

Mr. WILSON

Yes, everything.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That is undoubtedly a great conversion on the part of the Farmers' Party from the attitude that they took up last year.

Mr. DAVIN

And to-day.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Mr. DAVIN

I know what Deputy Gorey said. I am just going to quote Deputy Gorey. I took a note of what he said. He stated quite emphatically that he opposed the retention of the existing duty on boots on principle, and also objected to the making of any new duties as a result of the Minister's Budget. Deputy Wilson, who in today's Irish Times and for the first time to my knowledge, has been designated Chairman of the Farmers' Party in the Dáil, said he was prepared to swallow an unconditional protectionist policy. It is very difficult to find out where we are, when I find Deputy Gorey, whom I have always understood up to now to be the leader of the Party, saying one thing, and Deputy Wilson, who is reported as being the new leader, saying another.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Does the Deputy depend on newspaper reports for his information?

Mr. WILSON

I am not to be accountable for the statement appearing in the Times. I have nothing to do with that. He should not put the sins of others on my head.

On a point of personal explanation, the interview in question was given at the request of Deputy Gorey.

Mr. DAVIN

Deputy Wilson was good enough to say, and he said he was speaking on behalf of his party, that the Farmers' Party had now changed their policy and were prepared to support a tariff on imported barley and malt. I am glad that he has been converted to that point of view, but I am sorry that Deputy Gorey, realising that that is the policy of the Farmers' Party, did not make it known to the Minister for Agriculture. Deputy Gorey admitted that he did not approach the Minister for Agriculture and represent to him, as the Minister responsible for agricultural policy, the views of the Farmers' Union in regard to tariffs and what tariffs would be likely to suit them. I have received a number of resolutions from Farmers' Union branches, from one county council, and from a number of district councils in my own area, definitely and unanimously demanding a tariff on imported barley and malt. I know that these resolutions have found their way to 37 Fitzwilliam Street, and I know that they have been given careful consideration. I assume that the farmers have, at least, discussed that question and have, perhaps, decided in accordance with the view of Deputy Wilson, but they should have made their decision known to the Minister for Agriculture as their considered policy now. Deputy Conlan, speaking at a meeting in his own area, said: "To my mind, this question will have to be forced on the Farmers' Union." Deputy Conlan will, perhaps, give us the benefit of his views at a later stage.

Mr. CONLAN

My views are not changed.

Mr. DAVIN

We see how far his persuasive powers prevailed at that meeting of the Farmers' Union, where the matter was discussed. It is hard to understand the policy of the Farmers' Union, when, at their Congress, they definitely protested against a tariff of any kind as it would not be beneficial to the farmers, and they come along to-day and express different points of view and leave us in doubt as to what their views are.

Mr. GOREY

I think that Deputy Davin is misquoting the policy outlined at the Farmers' Congress.

Mr. BAXTER

Deliberately.

Mr. GOREY

I would not say deliberately. It is a natural tendency with him.

Mr. DAVIN

I quoted with due deliberation, but not for deliberate misrepresentation purposes. Deputy Wilson complained that the tariffs imposed are too small. Does he believe that a tariff of 33 1/3rd per cent. on furniture and bedsteads is too small? I am glad he has corrected his view with regard to that one particular matter at any rate, and I presume he takes the same view with regard to other articles that have the same duty as a result of this Budget, and as a result of the Budget of last year. Deputy Gorey made the alarming statement that our taxable capacity could be very easily reduced by five million pounds or ten million pounds. I think it would be very useful information, particularly to the Minister for Finance, if Deputy Gorey as the prospective President, or Minister for Finance, could give some indication as to how that reduction could be brought about. He referred to the over-staffing of Government offices, but surely it would not be possible to effect such a reduction in the different Government departments, which he has alleged are over-staffed, as to bring about a reduction of five million pounds or ten million pounds. However, I will be glad to hear from any of his distinguished colleagues who will follow in the debate how that figure could be arrived at, without, of course, imposing any undue hardship on the people he himself represents. The Minister for Finance indicated that exemption from entertainment tax would be given to the Gaelic Athletic Association in future, although he admitted that the duty had never been collected. I would be glad to know if that exemption would also apply to the National Cycling and Athletic Association.

Mr. A. BYRNE

Why not Rugby?

Mr. DAVIN

No. I would not support Rugby. There is one other question which I regret the Minister has not seen his way to deal definitely with, and that is the Government policy in regard to taxation on motor vehicles. The Minister said: "I shall deal briefly with two matters of importance outstanding. The first is the road tax on motor vehicles. Various suggestions have been put forward for a new basis. We have not yet been able to arrive at any conclusions. If it is decided to propose any change from the horse-power basis, a Finance Bill No. 2 will be introduced. In view of the fact that road-tax year ends on the 31st December, nothing will be lost by two or three months' delay."

I am not sure if the Minister for Finance is acquainted with the bad condition of most of the main roads to-day, due to a large extent, and perhaps rightly due, to the fact that the ratepayers are not prepared to pay for the breaking up of the roads by the heavy motor lorries. Last year in one county in my constituency a provision of £28,000 was made for the repair and maintenance of roads. The roads in that area are in a disgraceful condition. I went over them with the chief roads' engineer a fortnight ago, and he, no doubt, has expressed the view to the Government which he expressed to me as a result of that inspection.

Mr. GOREY

Perhaps that has something to do with the main roads to Cork.

Mr. DAVIN

For Deputy Gorey's information I was not concerned with that aspect of the case at all, but I understand that the Deputy's constituents in the last couple of days have expressed their views very forcibly on that question. This year, in the same county that provided £28,000 last year, the County Council have agreed to provide only £25,000. I am sure, if the Minister will only consult the Minister for Local Government and his advisers in this matter, he will be rightly informed that it is impossible to repair and maintain the roads in that county on a figure of £25,000. I know, and Deputy Gorey knows, judging from statements he made in Cavan during the recent elections, that this matter has been given long and careful consideration, and perhaps he knows more about the consideration the subject has got than I do.

I think it would be very hard to find anyone who has given consideration to this question of road maintenance who would oppose the tax on petrol as being the only way out of the difficulty. Ratepayers, of whom, of course, the farmers are a very important section, should not be called on to pay for the tearing up of the roads by the heavy motor lorries. If the main roads are to be made, repaired, and maintained, out of the taxpayers' money, then every form of transport is entitled to the same consideration. The Railway Act passed some months ago guaranteed a certain revenue to the shareholders of the new Company, and it is being seriously hit as a result of this preferential treatment as regards roads. I refer to it only because I know that the result of that preferential treatment of roads as against railways has been that a large number of railwaymen have been thrown out of employment. The question does not brook further delay, and having been carefully considered for the past six or twelve months by experts advising the Government they should by this time be in a position to announce a definite policy. I hope I am correct in reading into the language used by the Minister that the Government are not satisfied with the present system of taxation on motor vehicles, and that the people who use and abuse the roads so largely should pay for using and abusing them. Deputy Wilson, I think, referred to a resolution which was passed by the Distributive Workers' Union protesting against this protectionist policy. The Distributive Workers' Union are quite as much within their rights in passing a resolution on this or on any other question as is any branch of the Farmers' Union. I am only referring to the matter for this reason: the Distributive Workers' Union have been passing resolutions for the past fifteen or twenty years advising the members of their Association, who sell goods in the drapery establishments, to do all they possibly can to sell and advance the sale of Irish manufactured articles. There is no member of that Trade Union who can come forward to-day and say that they have been effective in their advocacy of that particular method of advancing the sale of Irish manufactured goods. Therefore, I say that having failed in that direction, protection has now to be fallen back upon as a means of increasing the sale of Irish manufactured articles, and that is the remedy which has been adopted by the Minister for Finance.

There are one or two small matters which I would like to mention, but which I think could be more properly referred to and dealt with when the Finance Bill comes along. I can only say that the matter of closing the door to future tariffs on any particular industry might, owing to exceptional circumstances, require reconsideration. I think with that exception, I can heartily support the Minister both in the relief that he has given by the reduction of taxation and in his general attitude upon the protectionist policy of the Government.

Mr. PEADAR DOYLE

I wish also to join in the general expression of congratulation to the Minister for Finance on the satisfactory endeavour he has made to effect an equitable distribution of the concessions offered to the taxpayers in the Budget proposals which he submitted yesterday. He said that he had had a multitude of appeals to afford protection to all kinds of industries and that these suggestions had been considered by his Department during the year. He further stated that the Government did not believe it would be for the benefit of this country to establish a general tariff, or anything like it. That is a policy that I, at any rate, agree with. I am satisfied that it is the wisest and best course to be taken under existing circumstances, that is, the gradual introduction of a protection system.

I would like to go a little further by saying that I am sorry he did not respond to a few more of the appeals that were made to him during the year, particularly with regard to tanning, brush-making, and printing. I will confine myself, at the moment, to one of these industries which gives considerable employment in the country. That is the printing industry. I might include the other industries. They are all suffering from the great depression of trade. There is considerable unemployment and what I want, principally, to point out is that most of this unemployment is brought about through the activities of foreign manufacturers' agents in this country. My attention has been drawn to a very large order for printing that has been given away by a South of Ireland firm to a London printer. Those who might be inclined to sample the "Paddy Flaherty" brand might ask that firm where their work is produced. A very large order from that firm was given away, and a considerable amount of money has left the country as a consequence. This is only one of many. There are numerous others. It is not necessary to refer further to them at the moment.

I might suggest to the Minister, when considering any further proposals, that he would consider the question of licensing the representatives or agents of foreign manufacturers in this country. This system, I understand, is in operation in South Africa. In the Cape Province of South Africa, manufacturers' representatives must be licensed. Representatives of foreign manufacturers and merchants are obliged to pay a £50 licence per annum for first agencies, and £2 10s. for additional agencies. Similar provisions are in operation in the other three Provinces, although the systems and the amounts vary. Such provisions, if applied to Ireland, would yield a pretty handsome sum of money to the State, without being any burden whatsoever on the taxpayer, even indirectly. If this system of carrying orders out of the country could be stopped by such an imposition, it would do a great deal towards giving that fillip that the proposals embodied in the Budget are intended to give. At the same time, it would be an encouragement to the people, who, I hope, will take advantage of the opportunity that is now given by the protection that is afforded. This would give a fillip and a support to Irish industries more than was ever given to them in the past. I believe the time is ripe for another industrial revival. I earnestly hope that the new tariffs will be a stimulus to the protected industries.

Mr. MICHAEL EGAN

I do not rise for a general criticism of the Budget. I rise rather to join in the congratulations that have been showered upon the Minister with reference to the Budget which, I believe, will be a popular one throughout the country, except perhaps in the constituency that I have the honour to represent. In that constituency there is a factory that is giving employment to about sixteen hundred hands and paying, in wages, about £10,000 a week. It was expected in the City of Cork for some weeks past, and statements were made by people in authority, that the tax on the Ford car would have been reduced. But the people of that city are now greatly disappointed. We also find that here, in the Dáil, efforts are being made by subsidy, by forms of protection, to help industry, to give what every Deputy wants to see given—more work. Here is an opportunity of having, at least, five or six hundred more men employed. I am not speaking of the Ford car, mind, from the luxury point of view; I speak of it more from the commercial point of view, because the Ford car is generally used commercially throughout the country. That being so, it would be an incentive to the purchase of a tremendous number of these cars if this tax were removed. The idea of paying £18 a year on a Ford car, which, let me remark, was put on by the British Government for the specific purpose of killing the sale of Ford cars, is ridiculous. It is a most extraordinary thing that the Free State should propose to continue that tax on a car, the manufacture of which is giving so much employment in the State. The Minister for Finance has stated that a Finance Bill No. 2 is to be introduced. Let us hope that if that is so he will introduce it at once, because now, when trade is about to open up, is the correct time to deal with this matter, and I sincerely hope that the Ford tax will be reduced, not merely by half but by considerably more, in order to increase employment. Naturally, the more people who are employed the greater will be the reduction of the dole, and the amount of unemployment in Cork at present warrants the removal of this tax. I sincerely hope that the Minister will immediately introduce the Bill for that purpose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The intention is, I think, to continue the debate to-morrow, but the Minister desires to intervene now, without concluding the debate.

Captain REDMOND

The intention is to continue to-morrow?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

Mr. BLYTHE

I just want to say one thing. Since I spoke, introducing the Budget, various appeals have come in that the date for the reduction and abolition of the taxes on sugar and other articles should be advanced. On the other hand, representations have come that no change should be made. During the day we have given careful consideration to the whole matter and to the representations that have been received, and we have come to the conclusion that the date announced should stand.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Would the Minister accept a proposal to report progress now?

With all respect, I remember the Statute, and it said that the money must be provided by the Oireachtas—"out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas," were the words.

The PRESIDENT

Does the Deputy think that we were going to get it by robbing banks?

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Well, to turn away from this and to discuss the whole incidence of taxation, I am afraid that we are spending on a scale that the country cannot afford. We are an agricultural State; the greater part of our income accrues to us from agriculture. Industry is only subsidiary; it only produces a relatively small portion of the national income and the national wealth. In addition, we are at the end of a great war period when agriculture all over the world is depressed. In particular, we are at the end of a revolutionary era which has had very great and perhaps disastrous reactions upon our whole economic situation. I submit that at this juncture especially, there is need to have a committee set up to deal with the problem, prepared to go into every office and deal with this question, to see to what extent the expenditure in the various offices is justified, and to what extent they should be staffed, so that the service may give some adequate return, having regard to the capacity to pay it. It must be remembered that this is a pastoral State and our public services must be based on our capacity to pay. We cannot afford to maintain services at the same rate or pay the same salaries as are paid in Great Britain. It is out of the question, because agriculture is one of the least remunerative of industries.

I protested last night and I protest again against the basis of assessment for income tax of farmers. Pre-war it was only one-third of the valuation. To-day it is on the basis of the full valuation, so that it is trebled. It may be said that, in a sense, very few farmers pay income tax, but I know that demand notes by the hundred are being sent out to farmers whose valuation is only £60 or £70. The Department also have got out a form which makes it so difficult to furnish farm accounts that the evident intention is to compel farmers to pay under a certain Schedule, in other words, to deprive them of the legal right to have the assessment based on the net profits.

As to the Corporation Tax, I have been informed that firms registered in Great Britain, who are doing business in the Saorstát, by the operations of some agreements, or by putting obstacles in the way of the Department of Finance, are evading the Corporation Tax. That is manifestly unjust to the companies registered in the Saorstát. In the past, as a matter of fact, these foreign registered companies have had a manifest advantage, because income tax here has been higher than in Great Britain, and they are only assessed at half the British rate. The very least the Finance Department can do is to insist on the payment of the Corporation Tax in all cases.

I have several times pointed out the need for a reduction in income tax, not merely to the British level, but below it. We want infiltration of capital into this country. One of the great needs of the situation is to get foreign capital to come in, and the only way to do that is to make a return on the investment pretty certain by having a low rate of taxation.

Mr. BLYTHE

What about the 150 or 160 millions of Irish capital at present invested abroad?

Mr CONNOR HOGAN

The Minister can deal with that question. It is extraneous to the subject which we are debating. Of course, before the Minister cooks his hare he must catch it. I have no doubt that with that perverse ingenuity which he is said to be capable of exercising, he can deal adequately either now or at some subsequent period with the dividends accruing on the 160 millions invested abroad.

Our great objection is to the proposed tax on wearing apparel. It seems to me that for many years to come we are throwing a very heavy burden on the bulk of the community. For what end? The Minister will deny that he will get much revenue out of it. He will say that whatever revenue accrues is more or less accidental, that it is not the primary intention of the Government to secure revenue, but that it is directly a tariff. How many people will this tariff benefit? Deputy Johnson gave figures to the effect that something like 12,000 are at present out of work in these trades.

Mr. JOHNSON

No. I said that about 12,000 persons were registered as engaged in the trades normally when they are employed. The expectation is that there will be an increase in the actual number employed in those industries.

Mr. HOGAN

Twelve thousand people normally employed in the turning out of ready-to-wear clothing? Even with 12,000 affected, I submit it is scarcely fair to put the very heavy tax of 15 per cent on the whole community. Deputy Wilson gave some figures last night showing that the imports of wearing apparel exceeded over £7,000,000 in value yearly. A fifteen per cent. tax would amount to considerably over £1,000,000 annually. That is a very big amount for the people to pay so that 12,000 persons may benefit. It is possible that factories may be established here but it will be some time before they are set up. After a while we may become more or less self-supporting but, at the present juncture, when people have to cut down every item of expenditure in their homes, it is hardly fair to impose a tax of fifteen per cent. on clothing.

Farmers have a particular objection to this Budget, in respect of tariffs, as they have to buy in protected markets and sell in markets where open competition prevails. I do not think that can be justified. As far as I can see, the present position is particularly ruinous for agriculturists particularly, in view of the fact that agricultural prospect are bad, prices low, and that it is scarcely possible to make ends meet.

Deputy Wilson was twitted some time ago on putting forward a demand for a quid pro quo. Rightly or wrongly we think that it is a dangerous thing to interfere with the fiscal system. Whether we like it or not, the thing is now an accomplished fact. I am prepared to stand over it and make no scruples about doing so. Inasmuch as we cannot continue to buy in a protected market and to pay relatively higher prices for necessaries in justice to ourselves we must demand a share of protection. We do not want protection as a principle or a policy, but if it is given to some sections of the community, farmers have a right to protection and will put forward demands for it. As the Ministry has embarked on a protectionist policy, protection must be given to farmers also, and they are going to insist upon tariffs being placed on articles of food that are dumped here, while at the same time they are produced by the agriculturists of this country. We must demand an adequate tax on these foreign importations. I am prepared to go to that extent, and while I do not look upon such proposals as an ideal solution of our economic troubles, at least they will be some help and agriculture will not be as depressed as it is. Undoubtedly, we have been defeated on the principle of free trade. We have then to take up a second position and to determine what will be best for ourselves. There are four or five articles that protective duties should be placed upon, such as bacon, butter, eggs, barley, oats, and flour—perhaps a very small duty on the latter. All these things are being imported in very large quantities and are pulling down the prices for the agricultural producer. That is a matter of common knowledge. There is no need to conceal the fact.

We are then faced with this position: will the cost of production of other articles which we require go up? I am afraid it will. I am afraid wages will advance. But what are we to do? We are, speaking figuratively, between the devil and the deep sea. We cannot continue to produce at the present unremunerative prices. We are forced by the inevitable necessities of the case, inasmuch as tariffs have been imposed for the benefit of one section, to demand that they be applied all round and applied fairly generously. We have to face a risk. But, rather than continue the present situation, I for one, am prepared to face it. Give me free trade all round and I am satisfied, but once you embark on tariffs for certain selected articles, creating sheltered trades as it were, particularly in regard to wearing apparel, including boots and shoes, the position is that we must get an adequate quid pro quo.

Debate adjourned. Progress ordered to be reported.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 23 Apr 1925