And looking for concessions. I say now, as I said before, that that is an indication of the wrong spirit in which to approach this question. In effect it is a denunciation of the idea, that an industry might be protected or assisted by a tariff on imports for the general good, that it is only a matter which can be approached as a matter of personal interest. It is because of the approach to the whole question that is shown by this Bill that I am distinctly opposed to it. I recognise, and I have recognised for a good many years, that there are dangers to the public well-being, apart from political activities, in import duties. The chance of life is a danger, but a danger that can beguarded against. But very much depends upon the spirit in which legislation of this kind is introduced, enacted, and, particularly, administered. If we begin our examination of such questions and our proposals with regard to tariff by assuming that they are matters of private, personal, pecuniary interest only to the persons making the application, we are practically relegating the whole subject to the pull and drag of competing interests, and are asking the various sections of the community to perpetuate that evil thing in the social and economic life which assumes that everything is to be considered from the point of view of personal interests.
I was challenged yesterday by more than one Deputy to state where I stood on this question. I do not know whether that was intended seriously, whether the Deputies did not realise the possibility that there are grades between pure black and pure white, and that everything had not been done when one has attached to oneself a label, and that it is enough for a legislator or any public man to say: "Well, I stand for protection,""I stand for free trade,""I stand for subsidies,""I stand for bounties," and let that be the final word in the matter and that nothing more need be said or thought—that once you attach to yourself a label everything else will follow automatically and there need not be any more thinking. I am not amongst those who appear to imagine, when they have said freedom of trade is the ideal, perfect fluidity between country and country and population and population—perfect fluidity of capital movement—and that that country which is best fitted for economic development will inevitably, in a state of perfect fluidity, and free exchange, survive, and the world's wealth and trade thereby reach its maximum. Nor am I of opinion that at any cost imports should be debarred provided there is even a posibility of goods of a similar character being produced within the country. But I look at the problem of Ireland in 1926 and the period and life of this generation and its prospects economically. I am frankly refusing to consider this matter from the point of view of the labouring man or the artizan in a particular trade or occupation. I ask the farmers to refuse to look upon this merely as a matter affecting the farmers of Ireland in 1926. I ask the merchants and manufacturers not to think of this problem as affecting their own industries in this particular year, or the year that may be current at the time they give consideration to it. When looking at the situation in Ireland to-day and the situation economically in other countries I recognise very big problems ahead. I want to dispel the idea that you have got to think of industries as entities and living things in themselves, which you should bow down to and worship, but rather that these industries are activities and organisations whose function it it to supply the needs of humanity. It is the human effect of any political or economic change that we can bring about by any method that we have to consider.
I realise quite well that if the farmer is going to look at the interests of farming—or rather, shall I say of his particular brand of farming?—for this year and next year only, he may well say that it is impolitic, but really meaning not advantageous to himself, that there should be no risk run of the prices of any commodity that he purchases being raised. From the purely selfish standpoint that is understandable. Similarly, if I take the railwayman and the docker, I can understand such a man saying: "If by any action the State limits the weight and quantity of certain classes of manufactured articles coming into this country, it will reduce my potential earnings and consequently I am going to oppose any change." On the other hand, manufacturers may say to themselves: "It is not worth my while going into this question of tariffs. I am carrying on very well. I am living an easy, comfortable life, and I am not going to put myself to the trouble of making a claim for a tariff." Following that selfish instinct, refusing to consider the effect of any political or economic change upon the national life, he remains quiescent and he refuses to make any plea or interest himself in the question of any change in the economic or fiscal scheme. I contend that in approaching this question the Government has declared, not merely by accident but has reiterated its determination through the mouth of the Minister for Finance yesterday, that this whole question shall be considered from the point of view of an individual application, that the individual must make a case in favour of a concession, a concession by the State to himself and his fellow-industrialists. And as the matter stands, if he cannot make a case there is no national interest to be considered. I say that that is an utterly wrong approach, and so wrong is it that I think the passing of this Bill and the character that has been impressed upon it even by the Second Reading division, the character that has been impressed upon the whole question, is practically the first step to inviting all sections of the community to consider this subject in the future from the point of view of pull and drag and of seeking merely individual pecuniary benefit for themselves.
If there is one objection that outstands more than another against a scheme of tariffs on import goods, that objection, to my mind, lies in the risk of degradation of a legislature, or merchants and manufacturers, by the system of pulling and pushing, dragging, cajoling and bribing that may come into the scheme of things under a tariff if it is not safeguarded. That, I think, is probably one of the greatest risks in a tariff system. It has been guarded against in some countries. In other countries, on the other hand, we know that proposals regarding tariff changes are looked upon as a good opportunity for all kinds of graft and all kinds of corruption. I am of opinion that the way the Government has approached the question in this Bill tends distinctly to lower the level on which the matter should be discussed in this country. I think the line that should have been taken would be for a responsible Ministry to say: "A case has been made; we ourselves are satisfied that the national interest is likely to be well served by a particular tariff or group of tariffs." If any question is raised as to any exception or any question as to the possible reactions, then refer that question to an inquiry, but first of all let them say: "We have decided," not on the application of an interested party, "that the national well-being will be served" by this or that proposal, and having satisfied themselves that a prima facie case has been made, that they could submit that matter to a Commission of Inquiry for further examination and not consider it as a matter of a concession which somebody has to pay for.
I do not believe that the imposition of protective tariffs of themselves will bring about that ideal industrial condition in the country that some people would be inclined to agree with. On the other hand, I recognise that there is need for positive State assistance to encourage the development of industrial activities in the country. Examining all possible ways of so encouraging industrial activities in this country, taking into account the state of public opinion, the comparatively backward state of industrial organisation, the lack of industrial and administrative experience—taking all these things into account—and having very carefully examined this matter from the point of view of the national well-being, I have personally come to the conclusion that tariffs on imported manufactured goods are necessary and should be extended. I have examined the question with the advantage of having heard frequently the views of the Ministry and particularly the views of the Minister for Agriculture. I have examined the arguments put forward on behalf of the farmers represented here in the Farmers' Party, and I go a long way in the belief that the future of the country will largely depend on development in agricultural production. I also think that a very great deal of that improvement will depend upon the extent to which better marketing, better quality of goods, greater quantities of live stock and live stock products, can be produced and sold both inside and outside the country.
Supposing the whole advantage that is foreseen from that line of development is secured, supposing the scheme of redistribution of population succeeds within the next 25 years in improving the general life of the present congests and the poorer farmers of the country, supposing the quality of all agricultural products is greatly improved— the breed of cattle and even the output —supposing all that is accomplished and a much bigger financial return is secured by the agricultural population, that, as I say, will be the fulfilment of the hopes of the farmers and Minister for Agriculture. What has been accomplished then? We have been told on similar authority that the land is carrying as many as it can bear reasonably. Consequently any improvement in the agricultural condition is not to be expected from that quarter, from any increase in the number of people living directly upon agriculture.
In following out the farmers' policy, which is purely an agricultural policy, we have to assume that the new produce is going to be marketed outside the country and the increased earnings obtained by the agricultural population are going to be spent where the best value can be secured. That is to say that the policy outlined is to improve agriculture technically, to improve the output, to sell that improved output in Great Britain or elsewhere, to spend the income on manufactured articles wherever they can be bought at the lowest price.
What, then, is to become of our town population? What, then, is to become of your increasing human population from the land? Are you going to add to the numbers of persons engaged in the providing of circuses? What is going to be done with your increased material possessions? You are going to purchase all the things you can purchase cheaply, outside the country. Let us not forget in this review that every modern tendency is towards cheapness, is to produce articles of a standardized pattern, so that in the future the great probability is that even in the building of your new barns and improved agricultural buildings, which we will assume will come from the improved return from agriculture, you will introduce the standardized article— perhaps steel, perhaps some other compound which will come forth in the course of invention and discovery—and that these, too, will be imported, and that the only persons who can possibly look for any advantage in the way of employment and occupation will be the mere assembler and unskilled labourer. That is the tendency. There is no prospect under these conditions of developing industrially. We may have a considerable number of men engaged in repair work of one kind or another, which is the most productive occupation in the towns to-day.
Again I ask you to bear in mind this tendency, and to realise that repair work is becoming less and less because of the fact that commodities are being standardised, and the firm that makes the original article is going to provide the spare parts. When I take this tendency into account, when I take a view of the position as it is developing, I can see no prospect for this country maintaining a population in comfort, outside agriculture, except in an unhealthy direction. I can conceive well of a prosperous agricultural community spending its moderate surplus upon pleasures, and on the other hand the country being developed from the point of view of a pleasure ground, and the urban third of the population and a considerable proportion of the rural two-thirds being attuned and conforming themselves to the cap-in-the hand-touch-for-a-tip kind of population. I do not want to decry for a moment the pecuniary advantages of tourist development or the advantages of amusements and amenities, but I say it is not a good and sound development to put before the country as a prospect, to say that you are going to have developed a fairly comfortable apricultural population, not extending in numbers but extending in comfort, with no other production in the country and with such urban population as remains engaged in the transportation to and fro of imports and exports, or satisfying the demand for pleasure of either the agricultural population or the persons that come into the country seeking pleasure.
This, of course, is an old doctrine. There is nothing new about it. Many people in the Dáil have preached it many times, but it will stand restatement. I think it stands restatement, more especially at the present time, when we have to ask ourselves, if we are satisfied that it is desirable to encourage industrial life, if only for the creation of variety, how best that can be done. I believe it is only possible to do it by assisting, by fostering such movements towards improvement, such attempts to become rooted as may be showing themselves on the part of industries, and not allow to be wiped out such industries as still remain with us.
It is also a doctrine preached on the Ministerial Benches that the State ought to afford some of the cost of this line of progress. Are we doing the best in that direction by the lines suggested in this Bill? I think we are doing quite the contrary. You say you are going to set up a Commission to examine into all the details and possible reactions of any proposals that come forward from those seeking after concessions. I think this step is distinctly setting up a barrier against the possibility of State assistance, State fostering, and State protection by way of Customs duty, for these delicate industries or industries that require some help.
I do not think that the money that we are asked to assent to being spent would be worth spending. On the other hand, if it is spent in the way projected I think it will be harmful and will retard the development which I have outlined. I am going to ask the Dáil to refuse to support this motion and, at a later stage, to amend the Bill in some way; at least to remove some of the defects which I think are contained in it. I believe that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the purpose and probable effect of this measure. Whatever misunderstanding there may be in the Dáil about it, there is a great deal more misunderstanding outside. I said what I have said because I want to make it clear that I am opposing this Bill because I believe it is calculated to prevent a fair examination of a proposal for the imposition of a tariff. I believe it will prevent the examination of any such proposal which may be put forward solely out of regard for the national well-being, and it will only secure the examination of a proposal which is put forward on behalf of men who are seeking pecuniary advantage for themselves. That is my main objection to the Bill. I have different views from some who opposed the Bill regarding the composition of the Commission. I think if the Commission were given a useful function no harm would come to it if there were men appointed from the Civil Service. But I believe that it is distinctly harmful to ask men who are to-day engaged in, let us say, an examination of a problem that arises out of a strike or a problem arising out of income tax or arising out of the nonpayment of unemployment insurance stamps and health insurance stamps and things like that, to inquire tomorrow into an application made, perhaps, by the very firm which to-day they have had to withstand or to oppose or prosecute. That I think is a distinct objection. I have no objection to the filling of the post of tariff commissioner from the Civil Service provided that that tariff commissioner is given a proper function and has of necessity a whole-time occupation.
