Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Nov 1930

Vol. 36 No. 5

Supplementary Estimate. - Tariff Commission (Amendment) Bill, 1930—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." This Bill is introduced for the purpose of making one important change in the Tariff Commission Act, and also for the purpose of carrying into effect a certain transitional arrangement. The important change which it is proposed to make is to give power to the Executive Council to refer to the Tariff Commission the question of tariffs in certain matters where no application has been made by a representative body or association. The main object for which this change is proposed is to enable consideration to be given to certain proposals for agricultural tariffs. There is a number of proposed agricultural tariffs about which there has been a good deal of agitation and in regard to which it would be almost impossible to get a representative group, to put forward an application and to sustain it before the Tariff Commission. The Executive Council desire that in the case of these particular proposals there should be the public examination that it is possible to have before the Tariff Commission.

So far as industrial tariffs are concerned, the new section will give power to the Executive Council to have proposals for industrial tariffs examined before the Tariff Commission without any application being made by a representative group of manufacturers. It is intended to use that power, if at all, very sparingly. It will scarcely be used in regard to any industry at present in existence in the country. The Executive Council feel that an examination not made at the instance of interested parties can hardly be as satisfactory as examinations like those which have already been conducted by the Tariff Commission. They feel that unless there are people there in the business and interested to put the evidence on one side at least and to make a case it will be very difficult to have an examination conducted on as thorough and practical lines as it ought to be. Therefore, it is proposed to use this power only in cases where some examination seems to be necessary, where there is either a general demand for it, or where there is some prima facie case for examination and where it cannot otherwise be heard.

As I have said, it is the intention of the Minister for Agriculture to move the Executive Council immediately to put a certain number of questions in regard to agricultural tariffs before the Tariff Commission. The other matter which this Bill intends to carry out is to enable the individuals who were former members of the Tariff Commission and who heard evidence in regard to applications, but who have not yet made their reports, to make reports and to have these reports regarded as reports of the Tariff Commission.

Mr. Lemass

Although this Bill proposes to improve the original Tariff Commission Act of 1926, in a manner which we have frequently suggested, it does not, in any way, modify our opposition to the principle of the original Act. We believe that the establishment of the Tariff Commission, and the Government's attitude towards it, have resulted in a definite delegation of the fiscal powers of the Government to the Tariff Commission. That was in consequence of the fact that the Commission, although not required by the Act to make formal recommendations either for or against applications submitted to it, have in fact, always done so, and have drafted their reports for the purpose of making a case in support of their recommendation and not for the purpose for which they were established, that is, the provision of all essential and relevant information concerning the application to members of the Government, and through them, to members of the Dáil. The Government have always acted upon the reports of the Tariff Commission apparently without question or consideration. So complete has been the abandonment of the Government's fiscal powers to the Tariff Commission that on occasions on which the Tariff Commission recommended against applications these recommendations were not considered by the Dáil at all unless some private Deputy moved a motion in the same relation.

No machinery exists under the Act, and it is not proposed to insert any machinery by this Bill, to ensure that applications submitted to the Tariff Commission, but not recommended upon favourably by them, will come before the Dáil, which is, or, at any rate, should be, the legislative assembly for the people of the TwentySix Counties. The establishment of this Commission in accordance with the Act of 1926, and the subordination of the Government's judgment in tariff matters to the judgment of the Commission has meant a definite loss of that freedom of action in fiscal matters without which the Government cannot possibly deal effectively with the situation existing in this country. The Government, only last week, discovered, in the case of the dairying industry, that the circumstances of an industry frequently require that immediate action should be taken if a prima facie case for the imposition of a tariff exists, subject to whatever alteration or modification may be considered desirable after some detailed and subsequent examination.

Even in such cases, however, we think that a more detailed examination can best be performed by committees, composed of persons possessing special knowledge of the industry concerned, and meeting for the purpose of submitting reports on that industry, and on that industry alone. Some permanent body to consider applications for the reduction or alteration of tariffs and to watch the effect of tariffs should exist, but should not be exalted to the position occupied by the present Tariff Commission, in which it, and it only, can decide whether or not a tariff should be imposed. Of course, despite the fact that this Commission has been established with those powers, the deciding factor influencing it in all its decisions has been the policy of the Government. The personnel of the Commission included persons who had on various occasions in the past definitely committed themselves to the advocacy of doctrinaire free trade views, and in this respect the new Commission will be no improvement on the old.

I do not wish to discuss persons who are not here to speak for themselves, but we are entitled to criticise the Government for having placed in the important office of members of the Tariff Commission persons who have signed reports definitely advocating that the policy of free trade is the best policy for the people of this country to adopt. It is unreasonable to expect that these people are going suddenly to forget the views which they have been advocating and to adopt a judicial frame of mind when applications come before them. I think we may take it that members of the new Commission, like those of the old, will be prejudiced against tariffs and will not be in favour of their application, as reports of the old Commission have clearly indicated. The Tariff Commission method has been designed by the Government to ensure the maximum delay in making a decision on all applications.

It is not necessary to give many instances in order to prove the truth of that contention. On 4th June last, for example, the Minister for Finance told us that the reports upon the applications under consideration by the Tariff Commission in relation to wrapping-paper and to coach bodies were almost ready and that he was expecting them within a very short period from the date on which he spoke, namely, 4th June. One of these reports was published last week and the other has not yet been published. On the same occasion the Minister for Finance referred to the Grain Inquiry which was conducted by members of the Tariff Commission, and he said that the drafting of the report was reaching a very advanced stage and that the report was likely to be in his hands at an early date. He spoke later, and indicated that the Tariff Commission would be able to present the report of the Grain Inquiry within six weeks. The report has not been submitted yet, although six months have passed since then.

I submit that the failure of the Tariff Commission to fulfil an undertaking, which it apparently had given to the Minister when he spoke in that manner in the Dáil, was not due to the fact that the members of that Commission were not whole-time officers, but rather to the fact that the Government indicated to the Commission that they did not want the report until the Dáil reassembled in November.

Now to deal with the provisions of the Bill. It provides, as the Minister indicated, for one alteration of considerable moment in the existing Act, and also for the continuance of the existing Commission while the applications now before it are being completed. The section which provides that the Executive Council may submit a question to the Commission, irrespective of whether an application for a tariff had been received from any group of manufacturers, is undoubtedly a substantial improvement on the existing Act. It is an improvement which we have urged here on many occasions during the last three years, and there was no one so eloquent in denouncing the proposal as the Minister for Finance. I would like him to tell us why he has suddenly changed his mind in regard to the desirability of this provision.

Only as late as July 29th last he condemned it as unnecessary, and said that in the Tariff Commission Act the Government deliberately took up the point of view that they would not impose a tariff unless the people who were either carrying on the industry, or who satisfied the Commission that they could and would carry it on, made an application. On another occasion—the occasion of the debate on the Estimate this year—he said that they would not put on a tariff in the hope that somebody would take it up, or that something might happen, or unless they had a definite application from persons engaged in the industry concerned. If Deputies take the trouble to go back to the debates they will find that when the matter was before the Dáil the same proposal was made by members on this side, but was rejected with scorn by the Minister for Finance. Whatever has happened within the last six months, the Minister for Finance has made a complete right-about-turn, and now asks the Dáil to embody in an Act a suggestion to which he would not listen in the first half of this year.

It may be that the Government have realised that they are out of step with the rest of the country in the matter of protection, and are trying to give people the belief that they are prepared to move faster in this matter than in the past. That, however, is only pretence. If they were anxious to move faster, it is not a Bill to amend the Tariff Commission that would be before us, but a Bill to abolish it. The Tariff Commission system, no matter how you try to improve it or patch it up, makes for delay, and the appointment of a Tariff Commission, which includes members who are hostile to the idea of affording protection to Irish industry, makes for something more than delay; it makes for futility.

The Minister for Finance was just as strongly opposed to the idea of a whole-time Tariff Commission as he was to the idea of having questions referred to it by the Executive Council. Just as frequently as the other matter was raised here so also the matter of having the Tariff Commission a whole-time body was repeatedly brought forward by Deputies on these benches, and on every occasion the Minister for Finance said that the appointment of a whole-time Tariff Commission would be of no benefit whatever. It was not merely that he did not think that a whole-time Tariff Commission would not have enough work to do, but he urged that the actual operation of the machinery required that a certain interval should elapse between the stages of hearing applications and that no matter how many applications were pending there would he periods when the members of the Commission would have no duty to perform.

On June 4th, which is not a very long time ago, he said: "I think there are not going to be many more applications, at least not so many as would occupy even one Commission working full time." Since June 4th some of the existing applications have been dealt with and, as far as I know, no further applications of major importance have been made. Why, therefore, has the Government decided upon the change of policy if it is not intended merely to hoodwink the people into believing that they have changed their attitude also? If the appointment of a whole-time Tariff Commission is going to put some Irish industrialists out of pain more quickly, then it may be an advantage because, as Deputies are aware, there are owners of industrial concerns in this country who are keeping them running at a loss in the hope that at some time in the future their applications for tariffs will be favourably considered and that they will be able to put their concerns upon a paying basis. Most of those industrialists who have run their concerns in that way have found that they were doomed to disappointment—the persons connected with the flour-milling industry, the persons connected with the paper-making industry, and, we fear, the persons connected with the coach-building industry.

The attitude of the Government on the question of whole-time protection for Irish industries and of establishing proper machinery to enable that protection to be considered has been most unsatisfactory. I do not know if that is because they are opposed to tariffs on principle or whether it is merely a reflection of the mentality often shown by the Minister for Industry and Commerce here, who believes that no Irish factory, no matter how long it has been established, or how well it is doing, can be efficiently managed, using the word "efficiency" to denote the way factories are managed in England. We hope that as a result of the passage of this Act some of the applications that have been pending as long as from 1927 and 1928 will be reported on, shall we say, before 1933. There is not much prospect of it if the new Commission is going to continue in the same manner as the old, visiting concerns in England, discussing the question of affording protection for Irish industries with the English competitors of these industries and delaying until all the trivial points in relation to the applications have been cleared up to their satisfaction. In respect of almost all the applications which came before the Tariff Commission there was a clear case for protection, but the Tariff Commission did not think it desirable to take the unprecedented step which they took last week and recommend to the Government that a tariff should be imposed pending consideration of the application by the Commission.

There was no case for the imposition of a duty on butter, other than a political case, in the manner in which it was imposed which did not exist also for the imposition of a duty upon imported coachwork. Deputies are aware that when the application of the coach-builders for a tariff was made in 1926 the development of road transport was only beginning. There were very few buses then in the country, but everybody knew that there was going to be a very rapid development of bus traffic in these days and that the competing companies would be rushing in buses as quickly as possible. The Government were asked to bring it to the notice of the Tariff Commission and to impose a temporary prohibition on the importation of buses while the Tariff Commission was considering the application, but they would not consider that request. The country is now flooded with buses. Some of the factories which were then working are now closed down, the skilled workers have gone to England or emigrated to some other country, and the efficiency of the industry is very much impaired while the report has not yet been submitted.

If the appointment of a whole-time Tariff Commission and the giving of this power to the Executive Council are going to result merely in the submission of a larger number of reports of the type we got last week, in relation to the butter industry, or some time ago in relation to the flour industry, then it would be better to have the Bill rejected. The publication of such reports does not provide the members of the Dáil with the information which they should have and does not solve the difficulties of Irish industries but merely helps to provide ammunition for those who, in the interest of the British importers, are anxious to ensure that free trade will be the accepted policy of the majority in this Dáil. Having advocated the amendment of the Tariff Commission Act in the past, in the way in which the Minister proposes to amend it now, presumably we will have to support this Bill, but we do so with no enthusiasm whatever because we do not feel that it will make the slightest difference whether the Bill is passed or not so long as the policy of the Executive Council remains as it is.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

In approaching this measure we have to consider whether or not the machinery of the Tariff Commission is necessary before tariffs are imposed. I think that anyone, with the experience of the last six years of tariffs, even in the limited fashion in which they have been imposed, that would hold that a prior examination and a very detailed examination is not necessary, would be very foolish indeed. I believe that such examination is necessary, very necessary because there are many implications and reactions which should be taken into account in the case of a tariff that to the ordinary Deputy here would not be apparent, and would not, perhaps, come to his mind at all when he proposed to introduce a tariff. I do not believe, as I have said before, in indiscriminate tariffs. I do not believe in the rushing of tariffs. I think it is likely that such a policy would do a permanent injury to the establishment and the maintenance of industries in this country. I do not believe in putting on a tariff for every little industry which is struggling here.

It is quite possible there may be industries here that are not quite suitable, and that are not worth maintaining in the country. I do not think the tariff, or any other method, should be used to keep them alive if they are not a benefit to the country as a whole. We should not have the idea that because some little industry established here is an Irish industry that therefore at all costs it must be maintained. I do not think that is a wise policy to have in mind. Before we take steps to encourage, support and maintain industry in the country we must be satisfied that it is of national benefit. So far as this Bill is concerned, as I mentioned here last Wednesday week, I think the Government are now attempting to do, even in a halting way, what the Labour Party suggested should be done when the original Bill was introduced in 1926. They are going as far as we suggested at the time they should go. Although power is to be given in this Bill to the Executive Council to recommend, or put before the Tariff Commission, certain cases in regard to which no application for a tariff has been made by any group of individuals, the Government are still confining the duties of the Tariff Commission entirely to the imposition of a customs duty. The Tariff Commission has no right, and no powers are being given to it, to examine whether any other form of help would be useful to an industry. It is all a question of a tariff or no tariff. There may be circumstances in certain industries where assistance could be given to them in the form of bounties, subsidies or reorganisation of one kind or another. While that assistance can be given by the mere imposition of a customs tariff, the Tariff Commission has no right or authority to enquire into that aspect of the case, and I think that is a distinct flaw in the Bill.

It was stated here in 1926 that the powers given to the Tariff Commission were largely founded on the scheme then in operation in South Africa. There was a very significant power given in the South African Bill, and although it was pressed at the time that something similar should be put into our Bill, nothing was done. I will read the paragraph dealing with what I am referring to. It will be found in Vol. 16 of the Official Debates, column 1850:

The Board established shall, in addition to performing the duties first imposed, inquire into and report to the Minister upon the nature, extent and effect of agreements, arrangements, combinations, associations and trusts connected with or affecting commerce, finance, manufacture, mining, trade or transport in so far as they tend to the creation of monopolies or to the restraint of trade, and submit to the Minister recommendations as to any action necessary or advisable for preventing such creation of monopolies or restraint of trade.

In other words, the powers given to the Tariff Commission were not merely to say whether or not a particular tariff should be imposed and then forget all about it, but they were given powers to inquire into the effect of tariffs and their reactions on the industrial and economic life of the country. I should like to see much wider powers given to the Tariff Commission than it is proposed to give in this Bill, a Bill which extends the powers given to them originally. I was disappointed to hear the Minister say that the power which has been taken in the second section of the Bill would be used very sparingly: that so far as industrial tariffs were concerned it would hardly be used at all. That is what I gathered from the Minister's statement, that this power was taken largely in order to get inquiries made into certain aspects of the agricultural industry rather than in connection with the industrial sections. While I think that is an unwise policy on the part of the Executive Council, I believe it will be found that there are industries here which are capable of very great expansion, but the people engaged in them are not anxious, from their own personal point of view, for any such extension. They are making a nice thing out of them as it is, and are quite satisfied to let things go along as they are, while the interests of the community and of the country as a whole are not taken into account. If and when such an industry can be found—it is open, I know, to do it under the Bill—it ought to be the policy of the Executive Council to have such a case as that referred to the Tariff Commission for examination and report, with a view to finding out whether, in the interests of the country rather than in the interests of the industrialists themselves, such an industry could be extended and improved. I do not know whether the Minister explained the reason for the change as regards Section 3 of the Bill. Hitherto the Commission reported to the Minister for Finance. In future they will report to the Executive Council.

Mr. Blythe

Only that in future some references will be made to the Commission by the Executive Council.

Mr. O'Connell

It is only a technical thing then?

Mr. Blythe

That is all.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Will all reports in future be referred to the Executive Council?

Mr. Blythe

This is purely a technical thing.

Mr. O'Connell

I am glad that it is proposed to make the Commission permanent. I hope the necessity will be seen for giving the Commission plenty of work to do. As far as I can see they will not have a very great deal of work to do unless the Ministry gives them more powers than are proposed under this Bill. If they are merely to inquire as to whether or not a customs duty is to be imposed, without giving any consideration at all as to the position of industries, then I think their time will not be fully occupied. At least I can see that a time will soon arrive when they will have very little to do if they are to be confined entirely to the question of whether or not a tariff should be imposed. The limitation in the Bill with regard to this question of a customs duty is one that, I believe, will be detrimental to the whole question of industrial reorganisation and revival.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

I very seldom find myself in agreement with the Leader of the Labour Party, but in the speech that he has just made I find myself in agreement with every word that he has uttered. In considering the Bill, Deputy O'Connell said you had to have regard to the question whether or not the machinery at the disposal of the Tariff Commission was necessary. All of us, I think, with the exception perhaps of the Opposition, have come round to the point of view now that such consideration is necessary. Deputy O'Connell asked if sufficient powers were given to the Tariff Commission. Is there anything necessary for the development of Irish industry outside the mere imposition of a tariff? The Deputy referred to the powers given to the South African Board. Deputies who have studied the question of trade in countries outside our own will realise that in the particular case to which Deputy O'Connell referred far-reaching results have been achieved. Whether these results have been due to the operations of that particular Board or not, I do not intend to take upon myself to say, but I would draw the attention of the House to one important fact, and that is the wonderful development that has taken place in the trade of South Africa. In 1911 it was £17,000,000 and in 1929 £100,000,000. Such a development must have been due to the operation of some cause or causes.

The particular way in which Deputy O'Connell criticised the Bill and offered his opinion that the powers of the Tariff Commission were too restricted will, in my opinion, be found difficult to refute in this House. Speaking from this side of the House, I would like to point out that all parties in this House are definitely committed to a protectionist policy, with perhaps the exception of one single Deputy—I do not know whether I can call him a Party or not. I would suggest, in concurrence with the views expressed by Deputy O'Connell, that in view of the backward condition of Irish industry to-day, and in view of the chaotic condition which the discussion of the past few days has revealed in Irish industry, other and more heroic steps are necessary than the powers given to the Tariff Commission under this Bill. The main object of the Bill is the development of Irish industry. Does any man in this House think that the imposition of tariffs is the only factor in industrial development? Does any man listening to me believe that if we had carried the resolution proposed by the Opposition the other day for the imposition of a tariff on bacon we could ever hope to raise the Irish bacon trade, by merely imposing a tariff, to the same position that the Danish bacon trade occupies to-day? Anybody who considers the industrial question in this country must come to only one conclusion, and that is, that if industrial development is to progress at a proper rate of speed we must take other steps than the mere imposition of tariffs.

I listened carefully to the Minister for Finance when he referred to that particular section of the Bill giving the Executive certain powers to bring certain cases before the Tariff Commission. I regret that in his statement he informed the House that the Executive mainly intended such tariffs to be applied to the agricultural industry. I was hoping that the powers which the Executive enjoy under this Bill would have been applied not to the agricultural, but to the industrial side of the question. Any man who knows anything about Irish industries and their decline knows that when we had industries in this country very different steps were taken by the Irish Parliament that then functioned from the steps we are taking in this Parliament to-day.

Are we never to consider in this House the resurrection of the industries which are defunct? Are we never to consider the setting up of the cotton trade in this country? I remember Deputy Anthony saying, when he was speaking on the question of the woollen tariff in this House, that there was a huge demand for the lower or shoddy grade articles in this country, and which the woollen manufacturers were not prepared to produce. Are we never to make an attempt to meet that demand? Are we never going to resurrect our defunct industries? Are these industries to be dead for ever? Any man who knows anything about the history of industry in this country knows not only the steps that were taken in this House but the steps that were taken by the old Irish Parliament to maintain industry and keep it on its feet. I heard a Deputy say in this House that the State never had an industrial arm and never had an industrial tradition. Was there ever a grosser slander on Irish industrialists than the statement made by that Deputy? Does he not know that before the abolition of the Customs Act that operated between England and Ireland the export trade of this country was on a par with the export trade of England? Yet we are told we have no industrial tradition and no industrial arm. Was there ever a more unjustified statement than that? The cotton industry was set up here through the operation of the old Irish Parliament, which voted a subsidy of £50,000 for the purpose, and brought over operatives from Lancashire and installed machinery. Similar steps will have to be taken by this House if results are to be achieved. I welcome the Bill, and especially that section which gives certain powers to the Executive. It marks, at any rate, the end of laissez faire in Irish industry.

There was an idea prevalent in this House that private enterprise must accomplish everything as far as the rehabilitation of Irish industry is concerned. This Bill shows a turning away from that point of view and that the policy of laissez faire which exists in no other country in Europe but in the Free State is receiving its quietus. The doctrine of non-interference in industry by any Government, that has been held so resolutely in this country for a number of years, has gone by the board.

Deputy O'Connell asked were there any other steps the Tariff Commission could take for the rehabilitation of Irish industry. I wonder with Deputy O'Connell whether this is not an opportune time for considering these powers. Everyone knows that unless positive action is taken by the State for the resurrection of industry after its emergence from the economic oppression and depression which this State has endured these industries cannot be resurrected. Supposing the Tariff Commission had the power, what is the first step necessary? There should be some knowledge of industrial matters, and there should be a selection of certain industries by the Commission suitable for operation in this country, that would work on a dividend paying basis, and would prove of economic value to the State. Are these powers conferred in this Bill? Has the Commission the scope or powers to consider anything outside of what may be brought before them. In my opinion the Commission has no such powers. If this is to be a really live Bill for the benefit of Irish industry I ask all parties to agree with me that further powers should be given to the Tariff Commission. What is the second consideration for the rehabilitation of Irish industry in this country? It is the consideration of our export and our import trade. Has the Commission power to consider such matters? If it considers such matters what power has it to effect any recommendations it may make? That power would be necessary if recommendations were made as regards industrial credits. Does the House mean if the powers are not in the Bill to give them to the Tariff Commission or to some other body?

I was heartily glad when we elicited one thing from the Minister for Finance in the course of the debate to-day, and that was, that in future all recommendations from the Tariff Commission will be made to the Executive rather than to the Department of Finance. I do recognise, and I will pay tribute to the sterling ability of the Minister for Finance, but in my opinion the Department of Finance has hitherto exercised too great a power over the Department of Industry and Commerce upon industrial questions, and I do suggest that the referring of the reports of the Tariff Commission to the Executive is a step in the right direction, and if I might say so the most vital step of all as far as Irish Industry is concerned would be the reorganisation of Irish industry.

Is there anything in this Bill to give the Tariff Commission these powers? Is there any machinery at present to deal with the question of such outstanding importance as the organisation of Irish industry. These are questions which should be considered in the passage of this Bill. The first thing anyone dealing with industrial development in this State should consider would be a survey of the whole field of Irish industry. How can it be developed, how can it be built up, how can fallen industries be put further along the road of industrial progress? That would be the aim of anyone dealing with industrial development. For instance, what powers have the Tariff Commission got to deal with the resurrection of such an industry as the cement industry? I have had from constituents close to my area frequent representations upon the cement trade. They have asked why deposits of cement should be bought by foreign interests and kept idle in this country. These are important questions that should be dealt with, in my opinion, by a body such as the Tariff Commission, or a similar body that would function side by side with it. Are such powers incorporated in this Bill, or, if they are not incorporated, why are they not incorporated?

I listened to a speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Dáil a few days ago, and in the course of the speech he said: "It is essential to the development of this country that we should have here a knowledge of what other nations are doing, that such knowledge is vital to industrial progress." That is a statement, I feel sure, no Deputy in this House will deny. Has the Minister examined the economic conditions in other countries? Did he examine the economic systems of other countries before the introduction of this Bill? Has he found anything in the machinery existing in other countries that could be incorporated with advantage for the industrial development of this State? The very limited powers conferred on the Tariff Commission under this Bill will only leave us just one little whit better than we were. Nobody will deny that the burning question in this country at present is industrial development, and I, for one, say unhesitatingly that any man who trusts to industrial development to the mere imposition of a tariff knows nothing good, bad, or indifferent about the subject.

If for a moment one might ask in passing through this House what has led to the industrial development of other countries, can anyone tell me in this House who knows anything about industrial matters that there is a single country in the world whose industrial development depended on a Bill such as we are asked to pass through this House? Have they done it in America, Germany, Belgium or Denmark? Have they trusted to a Bill of this kind to rehabilitate their industries and set them on their feet? We have various methods and tariff commissioners in various countries, but in all countries we have additional machinery to the mere imposition of a tariff where industrial success has been achieved. We have in America standardisation and organisation of works, tariffs, mass production, co-ordination of departments with a central departmental authority. Is there anything in this Bill to enable the Tariff Commissioners to put Irish industry upon the same level or to use the same steps that have built up the great industries in America? Is there anything in that Bill to follow the example laid down for us in Germany? Is there anything in the State to function on the same lines as the economic bodies that are functioning in Germany?

I would like to inform this House that, when I see arguments put forward for the non-interference of the State in industrial matters, I cannot help thinking that in a country like Germany, from the very inception of industry, the State has taken every possible step to develop and aid it, but in this country what steps will be taken by the passage of this Bill? Scientific tariffs, I grant you, will be imposed. Will there be anything else? Will there be anything there to deal with the reorganisation of industry? If one considers for a moment the iron trade of Belgium, with its vast financial resources behind it, its huge sales organisation at home and abroad, how can our unfortunate manufacturers hope to stand here, as they are now, individually against worldwide competition of that kind? When we are passing a Bill like the Tariff Commission Bill through this House, it is the opportune time to consider questions of such magnitude.

We listened to a statement the other day made by the Minister for Agriculture in this House. He said, with regard to our exports in the bacon trade to the English market, that from the information in his possession he was of opinion that if we could increase that trade by either doubling or trebling the quantity of our bacon exports to the London market we would succeed not in reducing the prices, but in actually obtaining a larger figure for it. There is no organisation existing in the bacon trade, good, bad, or indifferent, to deal with questions of this kind. Do you find any other country in the world with a trade of such magnitude and importance as the Irish bacon trade that can be raised to such an economic position?

Mr. Davin

That is a good socialistic speech.

Mr. Byrne

Whether that speech is socialistic or not, it is a speech which should be made in this House. Do you find France in that position? Do you find an industry such as Deputy Davin is interested in, the motor and transport industry; do you find the agricultural group, the sugar-growing group, without any organisation whatever in this country?—and then we are talking about industrial development. I wonder what led Germany to take the steps in industrial development she has taken? It was an absolute disgust for politicians. It was the finding out of one vital thing which anyone who knows anything about industry has found out in this House, the absolute ignorance on industrial questions that exists in the bulk of the members of this assembly. I am not making that statement in a belittling way; that has been discovered in every assembly in the world, and has led Germany to take the steps which have put her at the economic centre of the whole world. In this country it appears to be a kind of fetish that industrialists and those connected with industry shall have as little to do with the framing of legislation as possible. In Germany, for instance, the legislation framed and passed through the Reichstag is framed by the economic council before it ever reaches the House. Here industrialists come in by back-door means and they make representations which may or may not be paid attention to. What I do say is this, that it is a great pity, when industrial questions come up in this House, that they should be merely questions of party politics for one side or the other. That was another reason why Germany removed from the Reichstag the framing of industrial legislation.

I do not want to detain the House any longer. I hope I have explained some of the machinery that other countries have adopted for industrial development. But when I hear a man in this assembly telling me that this country has no industrial tradition I realise it is a pure waste of time. I cannot help raising my voice in protest against such a statement against industrialists in this country. I believe that in 20 years if the proper machinery is set going in this State, we will be on the same level in industry as Denmark is to-day, and that our exports will be just as large as the exports of Denmark. But if we keep on in the old Paddy-go-easy way or what is everybody's business is nobody's business, as we are now doing, I see no hope whatever for the industrial development of this nation.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Deputy Byrne has complained of the abysmal ignorance of this House on economic matters. There is some degree of truth in that, but Deputy Byrne should not have set himself up as the awful example. Really I was surprised to find such ignorance on economic matters as Deputy Byrne himself showed before the House. What I think is wrong with the last speaker is that this Bill is altogether too short. He has gone over the whole gamut to find out the things that were not in it. I think there is hardly one matter on industrial or economic subjects that Deputy Byrne has not spoken about except what is exactly in this Bill. To some extent, he was optimistic. He said the Bill was giving greater powers to the Tariff Commission than it hitherto had. Deputy O'Connell complained that the Tariff Commission were not likely to have very much to do, that the Executive Council are not keeping them fed with work. I can see in Section 4 of this Bill opportunities for the Tariff Commission to work for the next couple of years very strenuously on a whole-time job.

Mr. O'Connell

That is the old Commission.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I am talking about the new Commission. The new Commission will have powers to modify and abolish tariffs. I think the first duty of the new Commission should be to examine the tariffs that have already been imposed to see the economic effects of those tariffs, to see the reactions in places where they were first imposed which nobody dreamt of, and when they have dealt with that question I would then say it would be quite time, when we get the report of the effect of the existing tariffs, to give them some new material to work upon. Deputy Byrne, like all true economists and gentlemen who are bursting to do something for industry in this country, suggested as one of the greatest examples of what may be done by the Tariff Commission that they should inquire into the possibilities of the cotton industry in Ireland. I think if a man were to search the world for a particular article that does not suit this country to manufacture it would be cotton. Look at Manchester. The condition of the cotton trade there at the present time does not give much hope of entering into that trade here.

Mr. Byrne

What has been the cause of the decline of the cotton trade in Manchester?

Mr. O'Hanlon

I am talking of the present-day position.

Mr. Byrne

What is the cause of it? Japan that started twenty years ago. You cannot tell me anything about the cotton trade.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Will you tell me what is the cause of the industrial problem in America to-day? Can you tell me why is America, the home of tariffs, in the condition in which it is to-day?

Mr. Byrne

I could not. The Chair would not allow me.

Mr. O'Hanlon

The Deputy very cleverly referred to South Africa and he used one very non-committal sentence. He said the trade of South Africa had increased by millions and that the increase was due to some cause or causes. That was a very safe statement to make. Why he used it to illustrate his argument in favour of tariffs I do not know. The mentality at the back of tariffs, in my opinion, is summed up in Deputy Byrne's speech. He represents the whole-hog tariff reformer, while I maintain that there is nothing for this country but free trade. I welcome the Bill for the very reason that there are powers left to the new Commission to modify and abolish tariffs. I do hope that when they get down to work their first efforts will be to examine tariffs that have already been imposed and see how soon they may be abolished.

Mr. Moore

I wonder has it occurred to Deputy Byrne that the main fault of the present situation in regard to industrial development is due to the fact that the Government are not of one mind on the subject of protective measures. It is because of that obvious fact that I am intervening to ask a few questions. I would like to know what is to be the starting point of the Tariff Commission under this new Bill. Presumably they are expected to be acquainted with Government policy. Are they then to attach more importance to the pronouncements on tariffs of the Minister for Agriculture, who says that tariffs always raise prices, than to the pronouncements of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who says that only some of the tariffs imposed have raised prices, or again are they to take cognisance of the statement by the Minister for Agriculture in 1925 that not only can tariffs cause no increase in price, but that ultimately goods may decrease in price with tariffs.

Again, how is the Tariff Commission to ascertain whether they should be guided by the desire to make this country a country of general industry or a country where we would be largely specialists? How can they ascertain that, I wonder, from the statements of the different Ministers at the present time? An even more important question that I want to ask is: Whether the promises made by the League of Nations in 1927 are going to be adhered to by the Tariff Commission, whether the Tariff Commission have got to bear in mind the Report of the World Economic Conference which was held in May, 1927, and which was attended by delegates from the Free State? The other day I referred to that matter in connection with the President's statement. I called attention to these remarks of the President.

"A series of International Conferences has been held in Geneva, in which the ruling purpose has been the removal or reduction of obstacles to the interchange of commodities within European States."

Later on, he said: "Economic forces are deploying on the International field which, if their bearing on our interests were not constantly and carefully studied, might go far to stereo-type these activities by which we live. They might nullify the best meant efforts to widen the scope of these activities, and broaden the basis for the exercise of our industrial and commercial abilities."

I ventured to remark in connection with that statement that if the movement referred to were in any way sinister for this country that the Saorstát was not altogether without responsibility for it. I referred to this report that I have just now mentioned, and described it as, in spirit at least, a free trade document. The Minister for External Affairs intervened and said: "No, no, it could not be described as a free trade document." Continuing, I said that it had been signed by the representatives of the Saorstát, and the same Minister again intervened with a very satirical remark. Well, I have the report here now, and I find that the delegation from the Free State consisted of Messrs. Michael MacWhite, Wm. Dinan, James J. McElligott, Robert C. Ferguson, Thomas Barrington, and an expert, Mr. James M. Adams. I find that when I described Mr. McElligott as the "present" Chairman of the Tariff Commission I was wrong by four days. But I had no means of knowing then that he had already resigned from the Tariff Commission. It is important, however, to know that he was Chairman of the Tariff Commission at the time that he was reported as having attended that Conference.

Mr. McGilligan

He did not attend that Conference.

Mr. Moore

I was about to say that I since understand, privately, that he did not attend the Conference, though his name is attached to this report, but that is a matter for the Minister to explain, not for me.

Mr. McGilligan

He was not there.

Mr. Moore

This is an official document issued by the League of Nations.

Mr. McGilligan

But it does not say he was there.

Mr. Moore

Oh, yes, there is a list of the members of the Conference.

Mr. McGilligan

"The delegation consisting of"—

Mr. Moore

There is nothing in the document about "consisting of." It says "list of members of the Conference."

Mr. McGilligan

But he was not there.

Mr. Moore

Except privately, I have no information that he was not there. It is a matter for the Minister to explain that he was not there. As to the question whether it was a free trade document—

Mr. McGilligan

It is a question of whether it was signed.

Mr. Moore

On that question I will quote from the document itself: "The report, with the resolutions, was adopted unanimously by the members of the Conference, except for the abstention of the members of the U.S.S.R. delegation... and the members of the Turkish delegation."

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy said the other night that the document was "signed" by Mr. McElligott.

Mr. Moore

I will leave all this little quibbling to the Minister. He has more experience of it than I.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not quibbling to say that a man did not sign a document when he was not in Geneva at all. Nor is it quibbling to say that the document was not, in fact, signed by anybody, because it is stated that it was not signed by anybody, and if the Deputy will go a little further he will find a very definite expression of opinion that it bound nobody.

Mr. Cooney

Except that it was passed unanimously.

Mr. McGilligan

By the Conference.

Mr. Moore

Yes, except that it was adopted unanimously. I cannot see the difference between that and its being signed by those present. I do not want to be at all unfair, or to misrepresent the late Chairman of the Tariff Commission. As I have said, I intended to explain that I since understand that the late Chairman of the Tariff Commission, according to my private information, was not at the Conference, but I have no official information on that point, and I was going to remark that that was a matter for the Minister to explain. The important thing for us is that there is a document emanating from the League of Nations, and adopted unanimously with the two exceptions I have mentioned. On that matter, as to whether it was signed by the delegates, here is an extract from the Chairman's address:

I venture here to make an urgent and solemn appeal to all those— members and experts—who have cooperated in our work and taken part in the conference. By contributing to the framing and adoption of our recommendations, we have assumed a real moral obligation to disseminate, to defend and to secure the triumph of the truths which we have formally proclaimed. They will win their way gradually, no doubt, and partially, but they will ultimately prevail.

I will quote two or three things from the document.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What is the relation between that and the Second Reading of this Bill? We are not discussing that report now.

Mr. Moore

I was asking is the Tariff Commission to be bound by these undertakings?

Mr. McGilligan

What undertakings?

Mr. Moore

Is it not important to see what these undertakings are?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not want to have the Deputy quoting from a report that is not before the House, and that is not going to be discussed.

Mr. Moore

Surely it is important to know whether those obligations undertaken in Geneva in May, in the year 1927, are still in effect, or whether the Tariff Commission, which is under consideration at the moment, are to be bound by them?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are only on the question of order. I am not concerned with its importance but with its order.

Mr. Moore

I submit it is in order. As members of the League of Nations —and we are not merely members but subscribing members—it is important to know if we are bound by these undertakings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not discussing the League of Nations or any report from the League of Nations at the moment. We are discussing the Tariff Commission Bill.

Mr. Moore

I was endeavouring to show that the obligations undertaken by the present Government to the League of Nations cut across the policy that is declared here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the Bill about that. The title of this Bill is: "An Act to amend the Tariff Commission Act by conferring on the Executive Council power to refer to the Tariff Commission matters and questions relating to customs duties and so on."

Mr. Moore

I think, sir, you misunderstood me. We have here a document saying that the present Government undertook obligations to the League of Nations at Geneva in 1927. These obligations bound the delegates to disseminate the principles of free trade. Surely that is an important question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not disputing the importance of it, but it has no relation to this Bill.

Mr. Moore

It has.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am the judge of that.

Mr. Moore

The Report very directly concerns the question: What criteria are to guide the members of the Tariff Commission in their work?

Mr. McGilligan

The schedule of the Principal Act.

Mr. Blythe

Yes, the schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Moore

It does not get over this document. Am I out of order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Certainly.

Mr. Moore

I cannot go on then, but I suggest that we should have some explanation as to whether these obligations are still recognised by the Government, and whether they will instruct the Tariff Commission to act on them.

Mr. McGilligan

There are no obligations undertaken by the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I suggest that the Deputy get back to the Bill.

Mr. Moore

I will conclude on that point. I do not think I have anything further to say.

Mr. Derrig

I agree with Deputy Moore that the policy which the Government representatives have been preaching in foreign countries in regard to tariffs must have some influence on the tariff policy at home here. You, sir, said that Deputy Moore's line of argument was out of order. The title of this Bill is an Act to amend the Tariff Commission Act by conferring on the Executive Council power to refer to the Tariff Commission matters and questions relating to customs and so on. Now, we want to know exactly what matters the Government are going to refer to the Tariff Commission. Now is the time for them to state their policy. Are they going, as Deputy Moore has asked, to be bound by certain delegations or agreements or conventions entered into at the League of Nations or elsewhere, or are they going to have a rigid examination of all Irish industries of any importance to see how far these industries can be fostered?

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, after his long holiday in London, has come home to tell us he has made several important inquiries in the matter of economic research. He has seriously taken up the question of providing unemployment figures so that after seven or eight years of his administration the country may be in a position to know what exactly is the extent of unemployment. Another matter that the Minister is taking up is the question of prices. He told us, having returned from London, that he felt the whole question of tariffs would have to be examined in view of the fact that there was a general fall in prices. It seems rather late in the day for the Minister to wake up to that fact. The fall in prices has been going on steadily since 1922. During the past five or six years it has meant an enormous difference in the income of the agriculturist, with a corresponding advantage to the person who is in receipt of a fixed salary or income. The Minister has a bureau of statistics, and I think it is nearly time, after so many years, and when so much money and labour have been devoted to that work, that more attention should be given to this matter and it should be brought into conformity with the Government's tariff policy.

When we came into this House we said that there should be an Economic Commission, or a Tariff Commission if you like, which would go into the whole question of Irish industry. The Minister scoffed at that, but now he is prepared to accept by instalments the suggestions made from this side of the House. The first suggestion made was that this should be a whole-time Commission. A further suggestion was made from these benches to the effect that the Tariff Commission should go into the whole question of costings and, if necessary, fix safeguards for the protection of the consumer. The first Tariff Commission was moving so slowly that it was not giving satisfaction to anybody. Now we are in danger of having a Tariff Commission which will overnight carry into effect whatever may suit the existing political situation.

We want to see this whole question gone into. We are not concerned with the League of Nations, with international blocs or with the repercussions of economic groups. Whether these economic groups or international blocs go ahead or not, we have a policy which we should all combine to carry into effect, and that policy is to increase production in agriculture and in our manufactures by every means in our power. This Tariff Commission will be confined absolutely to one particular thing, and that is the fostering of industries by means of customs duties. Last Friday the Ministry admitted here that in that regard the Tariff Commission is incomplete. It has only one weapon for dealing with industrial advance. We have the position that the Government themselves rushed the proposal for a total prohibition in the case of an important item affecting the breakfast table of every member of the community. That was done because the Tariff Commission as constituted had no power to deal with bounties, subsidies or the Merchandise Marks Act.

I will take a case that may be somewhat removed from the immediate question of tariffs, but in my opinion it has an important bearing on the home industry. I refer to the question of hire-purchase agreements. There is no use in attempting to develop industries here against foreign competition. Not alone are the foreign combines so strong that they can afford for a considerable time to dump goods here at a price that the Irish manufacturer could not possibly equal in the way of production—and that would be a terrible thing for the native manufacturer to compete against—but the local manufacturer has to compete also against the credit system and that absolutely takes away all possibility of the advancement of a manufacturer with £10,000, £50,000, or even £100,000 behind him. You have combines coming from across the water setting up shops and giving special terms. They do not even ask for cash down or a deposit for large quantities of imported articles. Some effort ought to be made to deal with that.

There is also a question which I think Deputies, whether or not they agree with the tariff policy, must receive with a certain amount of approbation. I refer to the marking of foreign foodstuffs with the name of the country of origin. That is a proposal which has been recommended several times by different associations in the country, but nothing has been done. We have a very large import of manufactured articles. We are told that this country will have to face the storm of economic depression that is blowing over the whole world. If that is so, the sooner we get down to this business and the more effective means we adopt to meet the situation the better for us all.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has called attention to the reason why he refuses to institute any safeguard for the consumer. He has on a number of occasions, when it suited him, attacked the tariff policy by quoting certain examples of where the tariffed article has increased in price. He has said in certain cases, such as boots and shoes, that the consumer is, in fact, paying an increased price of 7 per cent. If that 7 per cent. is unjustifiable, and if the Minister believes it has no raison d'être, why does he not take steps to have the whole question of the costings in that industry gone into? Why does he not take steps to have the price fixed for the consumer? Why does he not tell the House the exact position in this industry, or say how long will the country have to support it? The taxpayer is paying £950,000 in respect of duties on boots, shoes and clothing. When we have Ministers telling us that tariffs are going to increase the cost of living, the man in the street naturally asks whether the Ministers are sincere when they have taken no steps to investigate the situation in respect of industries which are producing the articles for which the consumer is contributing nearly £1,000,000. We have a long list of manufactured articles coming across the water, and I would like to know whether the Tariff Commission is going to be asked by the Government to go into the whole question of these imports so as to find out whether it is economical to start industries by which we could replace these imported articles with home products, and whether to do so would be a good thing for the nation. They could further examine what steps ought to be taken to develop these industries from the technical point of view, and what steps will be necessary to get credit for them or to induce capital to be invested. All these are matters which, as the Tariff Commission Bill stands at present, will be left outside its purview.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce says his Department is going to examine this question. His Department has not been able to tell us what is the extent of unemployment, and it is not able to tell us how the costings of the tariffed industries stand or what relation they bear to the consumer. A Department that is not able to do these things is not likely to give any better results in the future in spite of all the money that is spent upon it. We feel the best thing to do, now that the Tariff Commission is being reconstituted, is to give it carte blanche to go into the whole question of industrial reconstruction and to examine the question from every angle—from the point of view of technical efficiency and the provision of capital. If the whole matter were gone into from that point of view we would be much more whole-hearted in supporting it.

Mr. Blythe

It should not be concluded that there is any great change of attitude on the part of the Government towards the work of the Tariff Commission. During the past eighteen months or so it has undoubtedly become apparent that the consideration of applications was proceeding somewhat more slowly than it ought to proceed. In the first period when the Tariff Commission was working it was able to get ahead very satisfactorily from the point of view of speed with the consideration of applications. As time went on further demands that other work made on members resulted in the Tariff Commission work being slowed up to an appreciable extent. I do not know whether we would have decided to appoint a whole-time Tariff Commission, even although certain delays took place, if it had not been that we also came to the decision that it was better to clear the air in regard to certain matters relating to agricultural tariffs. The decision to set up a whole-time Tariff Commission, and the decision to refer certain agricultural proposals to the Tariff Commission were taken together. As a matter of fact, there have been, in addition to applications partly dealt with by the Tariff Commission, certain new applications that came in in recent months. There were applications in June for increasing the duty on men's and boys' suits and overcoats; and on the 8th of August there was an application for a tariff on linen and cotton tissues; and later in the month there was an application for a tariff on oatmeal. These particular tariffs will be considered by the new Commission along with certain, other applications in regard to which the old Commission had not heard the evidence. We will, in fact, for a little time have two Tariff Commissions. We will have the members of the old Commission dealing with applications which were already before them, and the new body dealing with new applications that may come in in the ordinary way, and certain matters that the Government will submit to them.

The whole-time Commission, in one respect, has a distinct advantage over the part-time Commission—that is, if there is any matter that has to be dealt with urgently it can, for a month or two, give its whole time to it and get along more rapidly. But nobody could expect, except in a very exceptional class of cases, that it will be possible for the whole-time Tariff Commission to consider an application and prepare a report within a month or two. Where the whole business is very simple, and perhaps where one or two matters only were in doubt, then the whole-time Commission could, by concentration, perhaps, produce a very speedy report, but where there is likely to be a very considerable conflict of evidence, as has been the case in respect of certain applications already before the Tariff Commission, the interval that will elapse between the time that the matter is referred to the Commission and the issue of a report must always be considerable. When the Principal Act was before the Dáil as a Bill I pointed out that, in the case of Tariff Commissions, which were whole-time in other countries, a very ordinary period for consideration of tariffs was eighteen months or two years. I would hope, as our Tariff Commission is not required to go, and has not in the past gone as deeply into the matter as these Commissions in other countries, such a period as that would not elapse, but I think if anybody expects a report in matters which are of a complicated character within eight months or a year he is bound to be disappointed. For instance, I take it that a matter like an application for a tariff on woollen goods would be bound to occupy a considerable period even if you had a Commission dealing with that alone; and we do not propose to set up a number of Commissions to deal with different applications.

One of the reasons why we are anxious to have certain matters in relation to agriculture considered by the Tariff Commission is that we believe a great deal of misunderstanding is being created by the loose sort of discussion that goes on in regard to these tariffs in public. There is a general demand, which, of course, has not that amount of support that it would seem to have, but which is made in many places, and by many different organisations, and sometimes by the same organisation, in many different forms, for wholesale tariffs on agricultural products, and as already pointed out in the Dáil, when people talk of the advantages to agriculture of tariffs on agricultural products they quote figures which embrace very often not only a variety of small matters, but such things as bacon, feeding stuffs and wheat.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Our view is that the whole case in regard to agricultural tariffs has really to be fought out on the question of bacon, feeding-stuffs and wheat; that, leaving out the question of butter, which is before the Tariff Commission, the other things are of very little consequence. But, as a matter of fact, we have definite calls for tariffs on these matters of little consequence, and, coupled with them, we have the quotation of figures which embrace matters that are of very great consequence. We feel that the whole situation in regard to agricultural tariffs would be very much clarified if these minor matters are referred to the Tariff Commission, and if they are got out of the way one way or another, because, in our view, whether there is a tariff on oats or not is of no real consequence to the country. The same thing applies to such a thing as feeding-barley. Our view is, whether there was a recommendation for a tariff or against a tariff, it would not make any substantial difference.

Mr. Corry

What about malt?

Mr. Blythe

So far as malting barley is concerned, we are not prepared to refer that to the Tariff Commission. The same would apply to eggs. There are certain imports of eggs and what is called Canterbury lamb and bacon. Our view is that matters such as these should be definitely examined and definitely disposed of. So far as other things are concerned, such as bacon or feeding-stuffs or wheat, if anybody likes to come forward and make application to the Tariff Commission, then this application will be considered in the ordinary way. The same thing applies to the question of malting-barley. If any representative Body comes forward and applies to the Tariff Commission, the thing will be considered in the ordinary way.

Mr. Corry

In spite of any bargain you may have made to the contrary?

Mr. Blythe

As far as the other matters are concerned—feeding-stuffs, bacon, wheat and malting-barley— there also the Government are of opinion that a tariff would be definitely detrimental to the economic interests of the country—that instead of being an advantage it would be a disadvantage.

Mr. Corry

The very words you used last May about butter.

Mr. Blythe

When the small things have been got out of the way, then the field will be clear to discuss the question of agricultural tariffs in a practical and realistic way, and it will be impossible to create that confusion that has been attempted to be created during the last year or two. In regard to getting the Tariff Commission to go into such questions as the reorganisation of industry, bounties, subsidies, and so on, I think enough work is thrown on any commission, whether whole-time or part-time, when we deal with the question of tariffs. The question of prohibition, of course, can be considered by the Tariff Commission, as it simply means the recommendation of a prohibitive tariff. A prohibitive tariff is for all practical purposes the same thing as definite hard-and-fast prohibition, but there would be nothing to prevent the Tariff Commission recommending a prohibitive tariff if they regarded such a tariff as necessary. There may be industries where subsidies would be necessary, as, for instance, in the case of sugar beet. If anything arises where it would appear that a subsidy would be the proper thing, the Government would be prepared to have the question of a subsidy examined by some ad hoc body, as it was examined, though it was an informal body, in regard to the sugar beet industry.

The reorganisation of industry is a very big matter, and I do not think that any Government commission would be able to do very much in regard to it. Reorganisation of industry must be done by those who are controlling the industry. It is true that it would be possible for the Tariff Commission to indicate in their report what they thought of the organisation of an industry, if it became clear that it was in grave need of reorganisation, and might recommend that no steps in regard to a tariff should be taken until that reorganisation had been carried out. But, broadly speaking, a body like this can do nothing in regard to the reorganisation of industry, and their reports or the reports of any such commission would be of very small value. Nobody but those concerned in the industry can really get to the heart of a problem like that, and if an industry has to be reorganised it can only be done when those controlling it are convinced that reorganisation is to their advantage, or is absolutely necessary for their survival.

Deputy O'Connell referred to cases where the personal interest of manufacturers was against a tariff or an application for an increased tariff. Where that appears to be the case, he suggested that the Government themselves should have the matter of an increased tariff brought before the Tariff Commission. That seems plausible enough, and one might say that if such appeared to be the case it would be quite justifiable for the Government to bring before the Tariff Commission the question of an increased tariff for such an industry. But it would be very hard indeed for the Tariff Commission to give any sort of effective consideration to such an application. If the manufacturers here for any particular reason did not want an increased tariff, then it is extremely difficult to get the evidence that it would be necessary for the Tariff Commission to have in order to make up their mind as to whether that industry required or would benefit from an increased tariff. They would be driven to relying entirely, so far as expert evidence was concerned, on the evidence of people outside the country, and those, presumably, people who did not intend to start here. Because at present anybody who intends to set an industry going can come before the Tariff Commission, or anybody who wishes to engage in it or who had shown practical evidence of wishing to engage in some extensive way could actually come here, begin in some small way, and go before the Commission.

The real difficulty of this whole matter of having things considered by the Tariff Commission without an application from interested parties is the difficulty of getting evidence. There are cases where it might theoretically be quite desirable for the Government to put a thing before the Tariff Commission but in practice it would be useless for them to do so, because no case could properly be made. It is all very well for a civil servant to have certain views about what would be possible in industry, but his views are bound to be, at the best, theoretical, and they ought to be supported, if any change is going to be made by a tariff, by people who are able to give practical evidence and who have practical experience of the difficulties of various sorts that surround the carrying on of any industry. Although generally we hold by that view, we are prepared to consider any case on the merits. Cases may arise where we would send before the Tariff Commission for consideration a question whether there should be a new tariff or an increased tariff for a certain industry, although those interested in the industry had not applied. But, broadly speaking, we do not think that is a desirable course. We do not think that is a course that will give satisfactory results, or that the Tariff Commission will be able in such a case to furnish reports with the same probability of having understood the whole case and every factor of importance in it.

A Deputy spoke about defunct industry. I do not think there is any special sacredness attaching to a defunct industry. The mere fact that an industry had once been here and is now defunct is no reason for giving any special consideration to it. It might well he that it became defunct because in the modern world it was entirely unsuited to live here. It might have become defunct for different reasons. It might have become defunct for reasons connected with the way the business was carried on by those who chanced to own it, or something of that sort. But, generally speaking, an application in regard to any industry should be considered simply on the merits and having regard to its future prospects, and not its past history.

Deputy Moore asked as to what would guide the Tariff Commission. The Tariff Commission's duty is to be guided by the facts, to answer the questions that are put to them in the Schedule to the Principal Act in the light of the evidence that comes before them. So far as the Government are concerned, we only want to have the facts. If the facts, as they can be brought out in any particular case, justify a tariff, then we are glad to impose a tariff. If the facts indicate that a tariff would be to the disadvantage of the country, then we are equally glad to refuse a tariff, and the Tariff Commission have no instructions or no directions from the Government as to what they will find. We simply desire them, as I have said, to examine as carefully as they can the evidence that comes before them, to seek out witnesses who will put the full facts of the case before them, to look at the matter in an impartial and unprejudiced way, and to put us in a position to act in the best interests of the whole community.

We do not bind ourselves to accept any report of the Tariff Commission in any direction, but we have had confidence that the Tariff Commission was able and impartial and we have been ready so far to accept their view, after their labours in each particular matter, as representing the correct view. If we doubted it we would not hesitate to examine the matter further or in a different way. As I said, we do not bind ourselves to accept any report of the Tariff Commission. On the other hand, having carefully selected a Commission of able and independent men of integrity who had carefully gone into a matter we would be extremely slow to reject their view. We have had sufficient experience of tariffs —some of them put on without any examination—to know that there are two sides to a case. In the early days we imposed a tariff in at least one instance where it should never have been imposed and for which there was no justification. It is in respect of an industry which cannot live. Certainly it was a mistake. It is an industry which in the early days of Sinn Féin was boosted as one that should be kept going and it was one in which we believed. When I discovered that that industry was hopeless and that a tariff should not have been put on it I became strongly in favour of having a detailed examination in such cases.

Mr. Lemass

Did the Minister find that a detailed examination brought any better results? I would bring to his notice the case of the woollen industry in which the tariff was amended twice and there are further applications to amend it.

Mr. Blythe

It was amended on a small matter.

Mr. Lemass

Surely an amendment by way of a reduction in a tariff is not a small matter.

Mr. Corry

Would the Minister give his reason for saying that he is not prepared to put a tariff on malting barley?

Mr. Blythe

I say that there is a prima facie case against putting a tariff on the raw material of an industry which is largely engaged in an export trade.

Mr. Corry

Will the Minister say whether he is prepared to put the question of a tariff, on imported malt before the Tariff Commission?

Mr. Blythe

No.

Mr. Corry

Does the Minister still say that malt is a foreign commodity? Does he make any distinction having regard to the fact that £131,000 is taken out of the pockets of Irish labourers by his action?

Mr. Davin

Would the Minister consider the question of referring to the Tariff Commission the amount, if any, of imported barley which should be allowed in?

Mr. Blythe

No. If you have a manufacturer who is engaged in an export trade he should be allowed to have all the raw materials which he requires for that trade. I would not stand for limiting the sources of his supply.

Mr. Corry

Would the Minister state the amount of money subscribed by Guinness for the election in Dublin?

Mr. Lemass

If we have to import barley, what is the reason for not malting it here? The same applies to flour.

Mr. O'Kelly

Would I be in order in asking the Minister if he could tell us what are the qualifications of the Chairman of the new Tariff Commission for that post?

Mr. Blythe

Ability, capacity to examine a case, and integrity.

Mr. O'Kelly

Would one qualification be that he is a hard-boiled Cobdenite free trader, and, therefore, likely to be the Chairman of an anti-Tariff Commission?

Mr. Blythe

I was not aware that he was a Cobdenite free trader.

Mr. O'Kelly

You have something to learn.

Mr. Blythe

I am satisfied that the Chairman and other members of the Commission will examine every application that comes before them in an honest way.

Mr. Davin

Will the Minister say what salaries are to be paid to the members, including the Chairman, of the Commission?

Mr. Blythe

That will be determined later.

Mr. McGilligan

Would Deputy O'Kelly give us his evidence regarding the Chairman?

Mr. O'Kelly

There is plenty of it.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy does not want to give it.

Mr. O'Kelly

It is not necessary. It is patent.

Mr. Lemass

Is not one member of the new Tariff Commission a surviving member of the "Fiscal Five" who originally decided the free trade policy of the present Government?

Mr. McGilligan

They did not decide on a free trade policy.

Motion put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednes day, 3rd December, 1930.