There is one amendment to the Schedule proposed by Deputy Johnson, and it may now be taken without notice.
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (PROTECTION) BILL, 1925. - TARIFF COMMISSION BILL, 1926—FINAL STAGES.
Question proposed:—"That the Bill be received for final consideration" (Mr. Blythe).
I move:—
"In paragraph 1 of the Schedule, after the word ‘therein,' line 3, to insert the words "the average or standard rates of profits therein.' "
I do not intend to repeat what I have already said, but I want to have it on record that the Minister and the Deputies supporting him are not prepared to have an inquiry into the rates or profits made by protected industries.
I just wish to say that, in the main, I think that the Commission will be dealing in the first few years with non-protected industries. If we were dealing with industries which had been enjoying protection for a considerable period I would, as I have already said, probably agree with the Deputy's proposal.
took the Chair.
It is more important when dealing with non-protected industries that you should know the rate of profit.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Michael Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Colohan and N orton. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Tierney.
Amendment declared lost.
Before the Bill receives the final approval of the Dáil I would like to make a formal protest against its passing. My protest is grounded principally on the basis that the Minister has, by the introduction of this Bill, evaded a definite promise, or pledge, given in the Dáil on his Budget statement of last year. I am rather surprised that the Dáil has taken the lame explanation given by the Minister in this regard in the complacent way in which it has taken it. I believe that a statement of that kind, made, as I am sure it was, with the full recognition of its importance, should not be made by any Minister and be gone back upon at a later stage. I maintained from the very introduction of protective tariffs that the Government had no authority to introduce them and that before the introduction of even one of these tariffs, the Government should have in some way given the people an opportunity of expressing their considered opinion on such an important matter of policy. Either by means of a General Election or a plebiscite, the people should have had an opportunity of giving expression to their views in regard to the whole matter of the policy of protection.
I might remind the Minister that when Mr. Baldwin, Premier of the British Government, in 1923, I think, decided that it would be in the interests of his Government and of Great Britain to adopt a policy of protection, before taking any steps to put this policy into operation he decided that he should first appeal to the people and get a mandate from them at a General Election. Having found that the people did not favour that policy he abandoned it, and has continued the present Government without the imposition of any protective tariff. I maintain that the same course should have been followed here. I have my own opinion as to the advantages or disadvantages of protective tariffs. Other people have theirs. But once an appeal has been made, once a decision of the electorate has been taken, and if that decision be in favour of protection, for my part, if I were then a member of the Dáil, I would be willing to give what help I could in the selection of industries which might be considered to be entitled to the advantages of protective tariffs.
Ministers have claimed that they have embarked on a policy of what they call selective protection, that through this Commission they will select the industries which have most claim for protection, which are likely to benefit themselves and which are likely to benefit the nation to the greatest extent from protection. But I believe that once we embark on a policy of protection there is no drawing back. It has been stated by a well-known economist that protection spreads like a fire. He says: "Fire is not more certain to spread amongest inflammable material than is protection, when once sanctioned, to embrace a constantly increasing number of industries within its influence. Each new protective duty which is imposed inevitably creates a demand for more protection in other industries." That is the claim that I made in my first statement on this policy, that having embarked on it there would be no withdrawal, and despite the claim made by the President that the Government has only embarked on a policy of selective protection, my confirmed opinion is that in the course of a very short time we will have what will practically amount to a general tariff. We already have tariffs on 50 per cent. of all imported articles of an non-agricultural type, and surely 50 per cent, is a very considerable advance in the direction of a general tariff.
We may take it that this Commission will undoubtedly recommend the imposition of further tariffs, and I can see the day—and it is very near at hand —when we will have protection in the case of at least 75 per cent. of articles of import which, to all intents and purposes, will amount to a general tariff. I reiterate the statement that this Government has no right whatever to impose a series of tariffs without first getting the authority of the people. The general public are very much uneducated on this whole question, and with the opportunities that would be given them at a general election of hearing the matter discussed, hearing the arguments pro and con on different platforms, and reading the statements which would probably appear in the Press, they would have an opportunity of forming some kind of intelligent view on the matter. I maintain that the real issues have been side-tracked, and that the arguments used in favour of tariffs are not economic arguments but arguments of sentiment, arguments which are and can be proved to be unsound economically, but which appear to be very plausible and very reasonable from a sentimental point of view. They are built upon political propaganda, statements made by people who, when they made them, had not the responsibility of deciding what, from an economic point of view, would be best for the country. I believe that in the course of time—perhaps a very short time—the farmers, if they are not now opposed to this general policy of protection which is being adopted, will undoubtedly realise that a general protective policy is detrimental to their interests, and the farmers of other countries where tariffs have been imposed are almost unanimously against tariffs, and are almost unanimous in their belief that tariffs are injurious to their industry.
I do not intend to elaborate the arguments in connection with free trade and protection any further at this stage, but I cannot let this opportunity pass without registering a protest against the action taken by the Government in introducing this Bill, thereby evading the definite promise and pledge that was made to the Dáil by the Minister for Finance a promise and a pledge which I relied upon to be kept and because of which I felt that the imposition of further protective duties would have been left until the electorate had had the opportunity that they ought to have of deciding whether they are or are not in favour of this policy, which I maintain is a policy of a general tariff.
Referring to a statement of Deputy Heffernan's, I think, on a previous reading of the Bill, the Minister explained that his statement of two years ago was not a pledge but rather a declaration of policy. He said at that time:—
In submitting these proposals, I should like to state quite distinctly that the Government does not believe that it would be for the benefit of this country to establish a general tariff or anything approaching it. And it will not allow itself to slip into the position of having laid the foundations of a general tariff by imposing each year a few duties and giving rise to a host of claims for others. After the present Budget this Government will not break any further fresh ground in the matter of protective tariffs before the general election. We may alter the rate or adjust the scope of a particular duty; and we may, if we think necessary for revenue purposes, propose to the Dáil Customs Duties on manufactured goods of a luxury or semi-luxury type, but we will not propose fresh duties of a protective character on manufactured goods of common and necessary use.
There are certain loopholes in that statement, and I think it might be valuable for the country, and particularly of use to those manufacturers who may be tempted to put down their £100, if we had a statement from the Minister as to whether he really intends to keep to his word, whether it was a pledge or a statement of policy, as enunciated in April, 1925, in his Budget speech. Are we to understand that any Customs Duties that may be proposed between now and the general election—which may and probably will include the next Budget—will not involve any duties of a protective character on manufactured goods of common and necessary use, or are we to understand that any inquiry made by this Commission, if it is intended to have effect before the next election, will only relate to Customs duties on manufactured goods of a luxury or semi-luxury type, or only in respect of revenue-producing articles? I think, in view of the terms of the Minister's statement of policy, or pledge, that it would be desirable that we should have a re-statement of policy or a new pledge.
The Minister for Justice supported, I think, by one or two other Deputies, told us that in respect of 50 per cent. of the imports of manufactured articles, apart from agricultural produce, a duty was already imposed. I wonder will the Minister for Finance confirm that. I have endeavoured to pick out certain figures from the returns that have been made available, trade and shipping statistics, etc., but I cannot find anything approaching 50 per cent. It would be well, I think, if we had from the Minister for Finance an authoritative statement as to what proportion of, say, last year's imports are now subject to an import duty, leaving out such articles as have been subject to duty for some time, tobacco, sugar confectionery, wines and beers, but taking general manufactured commodities. If the Minister would tell us what proportion of the total is now subject to import duties it would help us to understand exactly where we are and how near we are to having a general tariff established, because if, in fact, 50 per cent. of these imports are subject to duty we are certainly approching the general tariff, and that was what the Minister declared himself opposed to doing. I think, in the interest of those who may be tempted to put in applications under the provisions of this Bill and to risk the loss of their hundred pounds, we should know whether there is any chance before the next General Election that manufactured goods of common or necessary use will be the subject of protection.
A hundred pounds is the maximum and not the minimum.
It is the maximum, but, as has already been pointed out, it is very likely to be the normal figure. It is not possible to know before the inquiry begins how wide it will be, and the temptation will always be to demand the maximum figure. I think we should have a statement from the Minister on these two points—first, as to the proportion of imports of manufactured goods which are at present subject to tariff, and whether the statement of the Minister for Justice is at all accurate, and secondly, whether there is any intention to depart from the pledge or statement of policy of the Minister, making allowance for the loop holes which he permitted himself when he made that statement.
The Minister for Justice referred to a calculation that was made some time ago, when making the statement that he did. I have not before me the exact basis on which that calculation was made, but I believe it excepted certain articles, which could not reasonably be produced here, from the list of those which might be tariffed. There was a calculation that about 50 per cent. of the manufactured articles that might prima facie be the subject of tariff, were actually the subject of a greater or lesser tariff at the moment. From that list of imports there would be excluded, in addition to agricultural produce, which the Minister for Justice excluded, items like coal, paraffin and so forth.
I was speaking of manufactured goods.
With regard to the other question to which both Deputy Johnson and Deputy Heffernan referred, in my Budget statement of this year I modified, to some extent, the statement of last year. I said that we had had under consideration the position of industries—I do not pretend now to quote the exact words I used; I am endeavouring to give the gist of what I said on that occasion—about which it was alleged that they would become extinct if some action were not taken before the general election. Our view, I said then, was that we would have to deal with those industries on their merits and that we would have to weigh up the cost of preserving them, if they could be preserved, and the loss which the community would suffer if they were allowed to expire. I do not wish to add anything to that statement at the moment. The Tariff Commission will present us with reports which will enable us to consider the case of each industry on its merits. As I have already said, we are no more anxious than we were a year ago to go ahead of public opinion or to commit the country to any policy which we believe it does not desire to adopt. We have anything but a desire to present the electorate with a general tariff position, which it might not be easy to get out of. On the other hand, we do feel that it would be wooden and irresponsible for us not to consider the cases of individual industries of value to the country, which might cease to exist within a short period and which might be preserved at no great cost to the community. We will be enabled, as a result of the operations of the Tariff Commission, to weigh up, with reasonable accuracy, the costs of any action which may be proposed in regard to a particular industry.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and declared carried.
Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.