One could justify any argument on that philosophy. I was tempted to intervene on this, not so much by what Deputy Brasier said, as by the Cobdenite outlook of Deputy McGilligan. Deputy McGilligan deplored what he described as the economic nationalism that was growing up in this country. He said that we were endeavouring to emulate the self-contained national entities in Europe, and that we were likely to find ourselves in the position in which these countries now find themselves. While I agree that the creation of separate states in Central Europe has not brought the prosperity that some people hoped for, one must not at the same time be guided altogether by the experiments of these countries, where industry is more on the principle of mass production than it is on any other kind of industrial principle. The plain fact that has got to be recognised, whether it is right or wrong—and, frankly, I think that there is an element of both in it—is that the whole world to-day has erected tariff barriers against the trade and importations of other countries, and what I want Deputy McGilligan to answer is this: Does he consider that if we erect no tariff barriers here, it will be possible for us to compete with the mass production of other countries, and the low wage policy which, unfortunately, permeates these countries as it permeates Deputy McGilligan's mind?
He told us that Australia was a shining example in support of his particular kind of economic theories. He told us that Australia was in an extremely bad condition to-day, and he attributed that to the fact that a Labour Government was in office there for fifteen years, but I had the statement from the Prime Minister of Australia last year, that the difficulties in Australia were, in the main, brought about by the jingoistic policy of the then Government of Australia, which decided to enter the European War, and to pay all the costs of participation in that war, including the payment of £17,000,000 to France for ground rent in respect of the ground occupied by Australian troops defending France, and, on top of that, we have the phenomenal fall in the price of wool. Australia, with the best intentions in the world, and with the best Government in the world, cannot control the price of wool on foreign markets. The depreciation in the price of wool, in the price of wheat and in the price of corn crops, generally, has brought about unparalleled difficulties for Australia. The difficulties existing in that country to-day have not been brought about by a tariff policy; they have not been brought about by a high wage policy. In fact, I think it can be fairly and accurately claimed that the methods adopted by the Australian Governments in the matter of wages, and in the matter of developing their secondary industries, have played no small part in saving Australia from the financial crash and the financial catastrophe with which it was threatened.
Deputy McGilligan went on to tell us that the agricultural industry to-day was in an extremely depressed condition and because of that fact, since tariffs would increase the price of the commodities required by the farmer, there ought to be no tariffs put on, and I waited for quite a considerable time, during the course of the Deputy's lengthy speech, to find out what industrial remedy he had to offer in a period of unparalleled agricultural depression. He says that the agricultural industry is in a worse position to-day than it has ever been, and that the price received by the farmer for his stock and for his produce is extremely low. These facts are incontrovertible, but what, therefore, does Deputy McGilligan suggest the country should do when faced with the fact that its main industry, agriculture, is going through such a period of acute depression? While something can be done to improve the agricultural industry; while something can be done to raise prices in the agricultural industry for the benefit of the farmer, a considerable number of factors that operate in the matter of prices in the agricultural industry, are factors which operate outside this country, and, again, with the best will in the world, the farmer here is quite unable to control the price of that portion of his produce which he exports to the British or other markets. Deputy McGilligan's speech consisted, in the main, of an advertence to the depressed condition of the agricultural industry, while not making a single constructive suggestion as to what should be done to absorb the unemployed men and women into productive industry. Clearly, the agricultural industry will not absorb them for some time, and Deputy McGilligan had nothing whatever to say as to any other means by which the wheels of industry could be stimulated, and employment, instead of despair, given to the unemployed men and women.
In January last, when the Irish Times, in writing of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, said that the Government which had ruled the destinies of this country for the past ten years was a Conservative Government, it knew perfectly well what it was talking about. It added: “While we have often disagreed with the actions of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, we find no fault with its principles.” I imagine that, to-morrow morning, the leader writer of the Irish Times will find no fault at all with the Cobdenite, unregulated, free trade, go-as-you-please mentality displayed by Deputy McGilligan, in the course of his speech to-day. One would imagine that free trade was a religion with Deputy McGilligan—something that was divinely right—and that the utterances which fell from his lips were the utterances of an infallible man. If I could judge the main thesis of his speech, it was this: “Do not resort to a tariff policy, because if you do, the result in the case of this country may be the same as the result in the case of other countries.” But not a single iota of evidence was produced by Deputy McGilligan to show that the problem of industrial development here was the same as in other countries, nor was a single iota of evidence produced to indicate the factors on which he based the view that tariffs would bring to this country the difficulties, and, in many cases, the disasters which have overwhelmed other countries.
His plea, in the main, was a plea for unrestricted free trade, and he gave us no idea as to what was to be done in the way of developing our secondary industries. He came very near to it, however, at one stage, when he said that the policy of selective tariffs was the wisest policy, but everybody who has seen that policy operating under the late Government knows that the selective tariff policy, as practised by Cumann na nGaedheal, was just a delightful euphemism for doing nothing. Doing nothing was pretty well a synonymous term for the selective tariff policy of the other Government, and, having regard to the fact that the late Government imposed a tariff on boots and shoes, Deputy McGilligan to-day, having regard to a natural restriction of free speech, came very near to admitting that the tariff, as applied by the late Government to the boot and shoe industry, was a tariff which had not yielded satisfactory results. It did not yield satisfactory results, in my view, because of the fact that there was no adequate supervision of tariffs by the late Government, just as, I am sorry to say, there is no power to ensure adequate supervision under this Government. In the main, the inadequacy of the tariff; the want of supervision; the want of driving force; and, indeed, the want of a proper industrial policy, produced the deplorable results which have been produced in the boot and shoe industry under nine years of tariffs.
Having said so much about Deputy McGilligan's view on tariffs, I want to say here what I said before, namely, that I do not believe that tariffs in themselves are a complete and effective remedy for industrial depression, or that they will yield those Olympian results that some people imagine they will yield. I believe that a tariff policy, especially in a small, sparsely populated country of this kind, will be found to yield disappointing results, results which will disillusion people, because the sparse population in the country, the general character of the country and its isolated position in relation to Europe and the world generally, is such that a tariff policy with diversified and diffused small industries financed by private capitalists, will not, in my opinion, bring about that industrial activity that apparently the Minister relies on. I do agree, however, that no matter how the result is to be got, something must be done to put into productive employment the 80,000 unemployed men and women who, to-day, are clamouring for an opportunity for work, for an opportunity to add to the wealth of the nation, and, above all, for the right to earn a decent livelihood in order to maintain themselves and their dependents in reasonable conditions.
No matter what policy this Government may resort to, in respect of applying tariffs, it cannot be as wasteful, in my view, as the policy of maintaining in the country 80,000 unemployed men and women who contribute nothing to the pool of common productivity, but who are drawing, year in and year out, from that common pool of national productivity. Putting these people to work is an important national responsibility. The cost of keeping them out of work is bound to be greater and greater, as time passes, and no tariff policy could yield more wasteful results than the policy of keeping such a large number of unemployed men and women in a state of permanent idleness, and denied opportunities of creating wealth, and, physically and morally, being brought to a stage of deterioration, by reason of long continued and widespread unemployment. I believe that, in the conditions existing in this country, with small capitalists, a sparse population and with the main centres of population around the coast, with a relatively undeveloped central plain, in the face of existing world circumstances, any attempt to stud this country with small industries, financed by private capitalists, is bound to bring disappointment and disillusion.
I think there are other ways by which some kind of industrial regeneration could be brought about, and I believe that the best way—the way that the Government will be driven in the long run—is along the line of State organisation and control, and, if necessary, ownership, in a decentralised way, of the main industries of the country, which are suited to the country. I shall refer in particular to a few industries, one of them being an industry that has occupied a good deal of time and attention in this House, and a good deal of notice in the public Press in recent weeks—the industry for the manufacture of tobacco and cigarettes. I believe that there are more factories engaged in the production of tobacco and cigarettes than are really necessary in this country. I believe that there is no insuperable difficulty in the way of the State deciding, as Governments in other countries have had to decide, to set up a State monopoly of tobacco, cigarette and match production. I believe that the organisation of the tobacco and match production industries on the basis of a State monopoly, an exclusive State monopoly in this case, would yield satisfactory results in the matter of employment and in the matter of production, and that, in addition, the State could give an object lesson in the way of efficient organisation of industry and efficient methods of production and employment.
There are other industries in the country which lend themselves to a somewhat similar form of State organisation. There is the flour-milling industry, for instance. Nobody, I think, will attempt to make a case for the present chaotic conditions in that industry, and I think nobody can say that, as it is at present organised, or disorganised, it can do efficiently the work which it ought to do on behalf of this nation. I believe the flour-milling industry is quite capable of lending itself to State organisation, public control and even public ownership. I am glad to say that one of the best economists in the Minister's own Party has subscribed to the declaration in respect to the flour-milling industry, that not merely would it lend itself to public ownership and control, but that public ownership and control are necessary in order to save the industry from passing out of the hands of Irish owners. Similarly, in the matter of wool production and the woollen industry generally. Here, again, I believe there are opportunities for public ownership and control. I also believe that many other industries of lesser importance, but still relatively important in our economic sphere, would also lend themselves to public ownership and public control.
I believe that the idea of small industries scattered here and there throughout the country will not materialise to the extent anticipated, and that in the course of time it will be demonstrated unmistakably that a tariff policy by itself will not bring about the results anticipated. I believe that a policy of State organisation of industry and public ownership and control would give better results, would enable us to face foreign competition, would enable us to have at the disposal of these industries the finance, the machinery, and the brain power necessary for efficient management and manipulation. I believe in that way, and through that medium, much more successful results would be obtained than through any policy of small industries, all weak, all ready to collapse the moment the tariff is removed. The State organisation of industry will have strength and vigour behind it. It will have behind it the factors and the qualities that will enable it to compete with foreign competitors, and I believe it can compete with foreign competitors even without the assistance of tariffs. On the other hand, I believe, once you put on a tariff to assist a scheme of small industries here and there that you dare not take off that tariff because the industries would collapse. A scheme of small industrial organisation of that kind is a scheme which must be accompanied by permanent tariffs, and which must be accompanied by permanent demands for more and more, and still more tariffs.
I want to pass on for a few moments and refer to Deputy McGilligan's horror at the motion which has been submitted by the Labour Party, and which appears on the Order Paper, in connection with our desire to ensure that every proposal for a protective tariff should include provisions to secure that fair wages shall be paid and fair conditions of employment shall be observed in the protected industries. There was little doubt while Deputy McGilligan was speaking that his attitude in relation to industry was, no interference, "Hands off industry" was the keynote of his speech. Every burglar in this and every other city would agree with that policy. Obviously, there must be some kind of regulation of industry, some kind of control of industry. There must be some kind of State supervision of industry, and, above all, there must be some kind of State intervention to ensure that in industries which are tariffed at the public expense, and indeed I would extend the responsibility to all industry, fair wages should be paid to the workers engaged in that industry and fair conditions of employment observed.
Quoting from previous speeches of Deputies has become quite an entertaining hobby with Deputy McGilligan. In order that he may have something to quote at some future date to show the menace of the demands of the workers in industry I should like this to go on record: That so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Labour Party are concerned, we take this essentially fundamental view, that the first charge on any and every industry is the maintenance in a decent standard of comfort of those engaged in the industry. I believe the first charge on every industry is to pay decent rates of wages and to extend fair conditions of labour to those who make industry possible, and through whose energy and skill it is carried on. Deputy McGilligan disliked the idea of the State being asked to ensure fair wages or fair conditions. The State ought to keep out of it, ought to hold the ring, ought to make the ring, while the employer was exploiting the worker or consumer. That is the kind of mentality that gives the world prudence. That is the kind of mentality that results in these financial catastrophies that rock half the world and pauperise the people of the world. The Minister's view, if I understand it rightly, was free trade in everything.
