It is not intended to oppose this Resolution but to express considerable dissatisfaction at its very limited nature. As Deputies are no doubt aware, the leather tanners of the Free State made application to the Tariff Commission for the imposition of a 25 per cent. ad valorem duty on imported sole and insole harness leather and also on manufactured harness. The recommendation made by the Tariff Commission which is embodied in the resolution we are now discussing, was limited to the imposition of a 20 per cent. duty on harness leather and manufactured harness only. It is apparently the conclusion of the Tariff Commission, a conclusion which has been accepted by the Government, that it is not possible to manufacture in this country all the varieties of leather required by boot-manufacturing and boot repairing trades.
It is not denied that the leather produced in the Free State is suitable for boot manufacturing purposes, but it is contended that all the varieties now in use in the boot manufacturing trade generally are not produced here and are not capable of being produced here. That refers particularly to the inferior type of leather that is used for the cheap, heavy-nailed boot. It is, apparently, the view of the Tariff Commission and of the Government that if the Free State tanneries cannot produce all the varieties of leather that are available in the world's markets at prices equal to or less than the prices which rule in those markets, then the protection necessary for the preservation of the tanning industry here should not be given. The applicants, in the course of the examination of their case, agreed to exempt from the scope of the proposed duty sole and insole leather required by the opposing boot factories and to confine their efforts to securing the market for leather used in the hand boot manufacturing and boot repairing trade. Even that reduced application was rejected and those who have read the report will, I am sure, agree with me that, however strong the case against the whole application may be considered, the case against the amended application is very weak indeed.
The applicants admitted that certain factors give an advantage as regards the cost of production to British tanners, who are, of course, the chief competitors of the Free State tanneries, but they argued that that advantage would not be so pronounced if the tanneries here were working to capacity, that the increased output would enable the Free State tanners to purchase hides and other materials on more favourable terms and would result generally in a reduction in the cost of production. The granting of the full application would have meant a small increase in the price of sole leather to boot manufacturers, but the Free State tanners maintain that once they were working to full capacity, with the decreased overhead charges that working to capacity would involve, they would be practically in a position to meet importers of that leather as regards price. The tanners concerned in the application expressed their belief that the provision of good quality leather at a competitive price would enable the boot manufacturers to capture a large part of the market now supplied by imported boots of inferior quality. It is my personal opinion that the boot manufacturers were very short-sighted in opposing the application. It would have been very much to their interest if steps had been taken to ensure that internal supplies of leather would be always available. Any temporary disadvantage resulting from the imposition of the tariff on leather might be offset by a slight increase in the tariff upon boots which is, in any case, overdue. I think that the Tariff Commission and the Government were particularly short-sighted in rejecting the amended application made. If the boot manufacturers were permitted to import the leather they required free of duty and the rest of the market were reserved for Free State tanneries, particularly the market for leather required by hand boot manufacturers and repairers, it would enable the tanneries here to get the increased output and put themselves in the position to offer more effective competition to the importers. If that had been done, it might be possible for the tanneries to renew their application for a duty on sole and insole leather required by manufacturers at a later stage, when they would probably be able to demonstrate that a tariff could then be given without any of the disadvantages that are feared now.
The only arguments against that course advanced in the Commission's Report is that some varieties of leather used in the repairing trade are not produced here and, consequently, would not be available at all or would have to be imported, despite the tariff, if the amended application were granted. The obvious answer to that argument is "We can do without those varieties." If a tariff were imposed and these classes of leather were shut out altogether, we would have to do without them but nobody in this country would have to go badly shod on that account.
The argument on which the Tariff Commission relied in the case of this application is similar to the argument they advanced in respect of other applications which came before them. That is, that because of intense competition the home manufacturers are not working to capacity and are not able to produce as cheaply as their rivals; consequently, they should not receive the protection they ask. Apparently, protection will only be given where it is least required. Where in the past bad government or restrictive legislation or intensive competition has reduced the efficiency of an existing industry, the old conditions are to be allowed to continue until the industry disappears. It is my opinion that the persistence of that mentality in the Executive Council or the Tariff Commission will mean the death-knell of the industrial revival.
In that connection, I should like to make special reference to the reports which appeared in the Press of the public sittings of the Commission in connection with this application. We have stated here in the past that it is our view that members of that Commission are prejudiced against tariffs and against a tariff policy and that persons making application could not be sure of getting their case fairly considered. That view has been borne out in a remarkable way by some of the statements made and questions put by members of the Commission at the public sittings in connection with this application. I refer particularly to questions reported as having been put by one member, Mr. Twomey, who is reported as having said a number of things which would indicate that he is much more concerned about making free trade propaganda than in giving the case laid before him impartial consideration. He was informed by a boot manufacturer who was giving evidence on behalf of the opposition in this case that boots were now cheaper than in 1924 and that the boot tariff had not put up the price of boots.
Then he came back with this intelligent question, "Then what use is the tariff to Irish manufacturers?" Witness replied, "It is an assistance to us in our general manufacture. It is also an assistance to us in getting on with the lighter end of the trade, which is the part most people want now. If the tariff were taken off we would be swamped by the English manufacturers who would come in and cut us." Then Mr. Twomey expressed this view: "But it is perfectly clear that a tariff is no use to anybody unless it increased the price of the article made." The witness, who was apparently taken aback by this partisan assertion on the part of a member of the Commission, replied, very sensibly, that: "The object of the tariff is to keep out foreign competition." There was further discussion on the matter and Mr. Twomey ceased asking questions and began to make assertions. His first assertion was: "I want that made clear because there has been an attempt made to get away with the statement." When was the attempt made to get away with the statement, "that the tariff had not increased prices"? Is this Government official on the Tariff Commission taking upon himself to reply to arguments advanced in the Dáil? Does he consider that he is there paid by the taxpayers and appointed by the Government for the express purpose of refuting protectionist propaganda in the country or the arguments in favour of protection made here by Deputies elected by the people? Apparently he seems to have some such idea in mind. At any rate if witnesses attending before the Tariff Commission are to be badgered in that way and to have their opinions forced on them in that manner by members of the Commission then any group of manufacturers who are thinking of making application to the Commission are likely to be deterred from doing so and certainly they have no reason to believe that their application will be considered upon its merits. It is, of course, only symptomatic of this Government that they should appoint a number of doctrinaire free traders to consider applications for tariffs. That is the easiest way of avoiding the possibility of having to impose tariffs, while at the same time being able to pose as impartial people anxious to do the best thing.
The leather manufacturers are, I think, to be congratulated on having got a very small part of their application granted. Other industries of much greater importance than theirs have had their applications completely rejected. Certainly I am convinced that no industry can have the slightest prospect of succeeding, no matter how strong its case, so long as it has to make its case before persons of the mentality of Mr. Twomey who made those nonsensical assertions.
