Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Jul 1926

Vol. 7 No. 14

TARIFF COMMISSION BILL, 1926—SECOND STAGE.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The next business is the consideration of the Tariff Commission Bill, but for the reasons I mentioned yesterday we cannot consider this Bill at this stage, unless the Seanad consents to suspend the Standing Orders which prescribe a period of three days to elapse. If the House desires to discuss the Bill to-day on its Second Reading it will be necessary to move the suspension of the Standing Orders.

I beg to move the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Before that motion is put, I think it would be well if you decide before you take the Second Reading to have some idea as to our future meetings.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I was going to deal with that, and if this motion is carried and the Second Reading carried to-day I was going to ask the Seanad to meet to-morrow for the purpose of the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Government are anxious, naturally enough, that the Bill should become law before the recess. We ought to be able to finish our business to-morrow if we finish the Committee Stage of this Tariff Commission Bill. Personally I am not concerned in its welfare or in its passage, but I think the members of the Seanad are pretty anxious to dispose of their business as soon as they can, consistent with the due discharge of their duty. If they see their way to pass the Second Reading, I intend to ask them to meet here to-morrow at 11 o'clock for the purpose of taking the remaining stages of that Bill as well as taking on the final stages of other non-contentious Bills.

I do not know, sir, if you mean to convey by that last sentence that this Tariff Bill is non-contentious because——

CATHAOIRLEACH

No, I meant the other Bills that are non-contentious.

It is not usual to prepare amendments until the Second Reading is passed. Points will emerge on consideration that will require amendment. We are meeting next week. If the Third Stage of this Bill had been passed I would not oppose the suspension of the Standing Orders to take the Fourth or Fifth Stages, but it is different with the Committee Stage.

CATHAOIRLEACH

If we do not dispose of this Bill to-morrow I think it would be better to let it stand until the 22nd, because otherwise it would mean having a special meeting next week solely for the purpose of this Tariff Commission Bill. Perhaps we might see first how far we would get to-day and then before we adjourn consider that matter more fully. Personally, my experience has been that when we do allow a further interval to elapse for the purpose of getting amendments put down when a Bill is in Committee Stage do not get any forwarder and no amendments come in. Whether that would apply to this Bill or not I do not know. Perhaps we had better leave it over until a later stage to-day.

Is there not a motion before the Seanad for the suspension of Standing Orders?

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is only for the Second Reading. That is passed. At least I understand that there is no objection to its being passed. That would enable us to put it through its Second Reading to-day. What Senators Keane and O'Farrell are talking about is the Committee Stage. I had intended that we would take the Committee Stage to-morrow. I am anxious to convenience the Seanad and generally speaking, they are anxious to conclude their business if possible by to-morrow. Nevertheless, we are not going to rush the matter if there are any Senators who feel strongly about it. Perhaps we had better wait and see what progress is made to-day.

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: —"That the Tariff Commission Bill, 1926, be read a Second Time."

I feel uncertain as to whether the situation would be adequately met by my moving that this Bill be read a Second Time this day six months or whether a different motion is necessary to prevent the passage of this Bill this Session.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It is only a question of form. Moving that the Bill be taken into consideration this day six months is generally the accepted form of negativing a Bill. If your only object is to have it adjourned until after the Recess, I think you had better move to have it postponed until after the Recess.

My object is to adjourn it until after the next election.

CATHAOIRLEACH

If you put it in that form, "after the next election," there would be no guarantee as to the particular time. Had you not better say, until 1st November next, and then you can move again? If we do not meet it cannot be taken before 1st November.

Would it not be better if I moved a direct negative?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I take your motion as reading, that the consideration of the Bill be postponed for six months.

The first point I want to stress is the unreality of this Bill. Senators will remember that in the early days of the Government a body was appointed to investigate this whole question of tariffs. I will have occasion to refer again to the composition of that body. It was a body eminently suited to discuss a question so complicated, so scientific and so subtle in its repercussions on trade generally. Eminently, this is a case where students and professors of economics have a right to be consulted on these intricate fiscal matters. That Commission duly met, and I do not think anybody will question the competence and ability of its members. As far as I recollect, the membership of that Commission included Professor Bastable, a man of international repute; Professor Smiddy, a lecturer in economics; Professor George O'Brien, a younger man who might claim to be representative more or less of modern young Irish thought, a distinguished graduate of the National University and a man whose works and publications are probably well known to the members of the Seanad and well known outside this country. That Commission met and reported adversely to the general tariff policy. I think there were only one or two small conditional reservations. But these were small. The general effect of their report was to endorse what is known as the policy of free trade, call it doctrinaire free trade, if you like. What "doctrinaire" is I have not been able to discover. It is used sometimes as an epithet or as a term of opprobrium.

One would have thought that in view of that report the Government would have at least taken the voice of the country, and not embark on a gradual and increasing policy of tariffs without a mandate from the people. Of course the Government may say: "What do the people know about this intricate problem?" No doubt the matter will be referred to at the hustings, and will be brought forward as a sort of red-herring. It is not unlike the jury system. Juries very often do not understand the technique and subtleties of reasoning that are made in their presence, but very often by a rough and ready process they give a good and true decision. That is very probably the way this curious monster that we call democracy works. It generally turns out something which is as good as a student or anybody else will turn out. I do not say that the Government have no justification for increasing protective tariffs, but in view of the recommendations of the Commission, I think the matter might have been held over until the people of the country had been consulted.

The present proposal to appoint a Tariff Commission seems entirely belated. They are proposing to appoint a Commission now when practically the whole matter is prejudiced. We have now tariffs imposed on 60 or 70 per cent. of articles that are in common use. Tariffs have been imposed upon clothes, soaps, sweets, furniture, and tobacco. Perhaps I should not say that tobacco is protected; that is chiefly a matter of revenue. Generally speaking, we have embarked in this country upon a wide tariff policy. I see no reason for this Bill except that it arises from some internal pressure. I am not cognisant of the affairs of the Government Party, but I imagine there are elements in it asking that more should be done, and this is the natural outcome of that pressure. That is a plausible suggestion as to why a Commission of this kind is proposed to be set up. If this Commission were set up before tariffs were first imposed, there might be something in it then, but at this stage I see no purpose whatever in the appointment of this Commission except, as I have indicated, it is dictated by party tactics.

I would direct the attention of Senators to the actual Title of the Bill. There is there a curious omission. The Title sets out that this body will report on proposals for the imposition, modification or renewal of customs duties. I notice the very ominous omission of the word "abolition." I would like to know why that word has been omitted. Why should not interests that object to being prejudiced by these tariffs —and I suggest there are such—be in a position to ask that the tariffs be removed? Possibly, the answer will be put forward that as it amounts to a contractual obligation with people who embarked on the development of their business, these tariffs cannot be removed. I do not think that argument would hold good unless the parties concerned show that they have embarked on an undertaking involving a considerable amount of capital and the expansion of industry. I do not think that vested interests should be allowed to prevent at least an inquiry into the desirability of abolishing any tariffs that can be proved prejudicial.

I notice that the powers given to this body will be very far-reaching in character. I may be unduly apprehensive, but the proposed Commission will have powers approximating to High Court powers; they can carry out detailed scrutiny of books; they can investigate the books of any business as much as they like. People will appear before them more or less in the capacity of plaintiff or defendant. This Commission will have absolute plenary powers of investigation, no doubt, in camera, but at all events they can investigate all the secrets of a business concern if they wish to do so. Those powers seems to be very drastic. I would like the House to realise the possibilities under such a Commission.

As regards the announced intention of the Government relative to the composition of this body, I observe they propose to appoint civil servants. I do not in any way wish to appear to doubt the competence of civil servants to deal with matters in which, naturally, they have been trained and to which they are accustomed. I would suggest, however, that the work of this Commission will not be germane to the ordinary work of a civil servant. Members of this Commission require legal training and a knowledge of economic principles. If we are going to have a Commission of that kind I suggest it should not be composed of civil servants. Civil servants cannot be supposed to occupy the same position of detachment that a body with a retired judge as chairman and two students of economics would occupy.

That is the case of the free trader. The free trader admits that the short view gives ground for plausible argument; but the long view is a very much harder one. The long view should prevail. It is always easier to see the obvious, but very often the obvious is not the most important thing. It is the unseen thing that very often dominates the situation.

As regards the schedule, I would like to have seen inserted in it some limitation of such a nature that if we are going to do this at all we should get as near as possible to the Safeguarding of Industries Act in England. That is better than any suggestion in the direction of a tariff or an indiscriminate tariff policy. What it means is that we safeguard ourselves against depreciated currency and unsettled conditions in countries where, perhaps, the rates of labour and the standard of living are abnormally low. You may say that conditions arising out of depreciated currencies are only temporary and there it might be argued that some protection is justified temporarily. I should like to have absolute free trade between all countries that have sound currencies.

In spite of the unreality of the whole thing I do not think that one can quite leave it there. One has to make a few general observations on this question of tariffs and free trade. There is a sort of feeling now that the free trader is in the nature of a die-hard, utterly discredited and gone for ever like autocracies, despotisms, and the rest of it. I do not accept that view; it is not the right view. The free trader takes his stand, broadly speaking, on the doctrine that goods pay for goods. You cannot go on importing stuff without paying for it by exporting. If you cannot afford to have goods you do not import them, and so long as you import goods you have to find some means of paying for them.

The thing is a natural, sensible and automatic balancing business, and does not require any nostrums or interference from the Government or anybody else. The ordinary give and take in commerce and trade will adjust itself. That is fundamental, and I have never seen it contested by any of these selective protectionists, or general tariff supporters. I would like to know how imports are to be paid for except by exports. A country not producing cannot import. Of course, I think all, except the most unreasoning of the protectionists or tariff reformers, will admit that there is going to be a rise in the cost. Let us take one article— boots. It has often been trotted out that because there is no rise in the cost of boots, owing to the duty, that there is going to be no rise anywhere. I think that even tariff reformers admit —I think the Minister admits it—that there you are deliberately and knowingly accepting that disability—a rise in the cost—and that you are doing it with your eyes open. No later than to-day members of this House have argued that you are not going to have any rise in the cost. With regard to boots, I would like to have a further examination as to how the quality is affected by the alleged stability of price. It is admitted, of course, that by stimulating some industries artificially, you hamper industries that have a natural and indigenous footing in the country. The free trader says that there are certain circumstances— they may be national, they may be due to the national characteristics of the people, they may be due to the location of source, due to climate and all the rest—and that if you leave things alone that goods will be produced where they are most suited to be produced. The articles most suited to be produced here, and that always have been produced here, are chiefly our agricultural products of various kinds. We have no great raw materials. What we ought to do is to develop what we have. We have a fertile and a rich soil, and our policy should be to develop what nature has best suited to our country.

Any policy which militates against that or hampers that, is unsound. The farmer wants boots, clothes and soap, and other things, and the more he has to pay for them the more it costs him to produce the commodity that we say Ireland is suited for. I hold that any policy that hampers that is unsound.

Of course, it will be said that the Commission will inquire into these matters, but let us not get away from this well-known axiom, that the raw material of one industry is the finished article of another. For instance, let me give an illustration of our recent efforts in selective protection in the case of the Irish bottle industry. The effect of protection there, I am credibly informed, has been to destroy any export trade that we had, and to increase the price of the bottles by twenty-five per cent. Still, the imported bottles can undersell the home-manufactured bottles, and there is this further objection, that the home-made bottles are not quite as good in quality as the imported bottles. There is a larger percentage of breakages in the case of the home-made bottles, and on that account alone, even if they were cheaper, they could not be used. The home trade for bottles is very small, because the bottles keep coming back and there is only wastage to be made up. If you had an export trade in bottles, the bottles would not return, and what has happened, is, as I am credibly informed, that such export trade as we had in bottles cannot live in this artificial atmosphere. We should, I submit, take the long view—a not perhaps satisfying one to certain members of this House—and that is the effect on effort, the psychology of the matter, and the effect on character. The minute you make opportunities where people will be sheltered, and where there is an opportunity given to exclude competition, you get a hothouse and artificial atmosphere, and you at once, I suggest, strike at the springs of enterprise and character. That is a point on which the free trader lays great stress. I submit it is somewhat analogous to what has happened in the last forty or fifty years in agriculture.

I know some of my farmer friends will not agree with me in this but I submit that this continuous effort to seek lower rents has had a bad effect on the character of the tenant farmer and on the industry generally. It has diverted attention from the more strenuous and virile occupation of production. The minute you do that you get manufacturers looking at the question in this way: "Well, now, we will not look to open competition; we will not realise that our backs are against the wall and that we have got to take off our coats and stand up against world competition; no, we will go and try to see what we can do with the Government, what we can do with Deputies." You get that kind of thing which is thoroughly bad for production and thoroughly bad also, I suggest, for our national character.

The administrative complications are to my mind one of the besetting objections to all this protection of business. You had an instance of that the other day in the case of washing soda. Apparently someone claimed an exemption for washing soda on the grounds that it was used for spraying for agricultural purposes. That, of course, at once involved the argument that you were crippling the basic industry of the country and so an arrangement was set up whereby the importers of washing soda for agricultural purposes sign a certificate, fill up a form, which is put through a whole lot of administrative machinery, and ultimately after inevitable delays, gets their washing soda free of duty. I notice in the Finance Bill that there is an exemption as regards certain materials. If you multiply all these together, the thing grows like a snowball. All these exemptions, restrictions, rebates and drawbacks involve very great administrative expense as well as any amount of correspondence and the considerable irritation that we all know of in connection with getting things out that are held up by the customs. I might mention in passing that in getting goods released from the customs, even people who are very well known cannot get a cheque taken in payment unless it is guaranteed. Not long ago I gave my wife a blank cheque to take some goods from the customs. She filled in the cheque and offered it in settlement of the amount demanded but it was not accepted. In the end she had to go and borrow money as she wanted to take the articles straight away.

There is a further point I want to make, and I ask the House to follow me in this. It is that there is an international aspect to this matter. Those who have studied this question suggest that the wheel is bound to turn. Those who have studied the difficulties of Europe, the League of Nations and others, have tried to get to the bottom of these troubles. It is generally agreed that one of the great difficulties at the present time is this unhealthy competition, this isolation of all the small nations all over Europe—there are, I believe, now twenty-eight fiscal barriers in Europe—all attempting, within those barriers, to cultivate this policy of isolation—this selfish policy of economic isolation, which of course, works out to the detriment of all. Obviously, you cannot have mass production and real efficiency in these small markets. It is a cut-throat policy, apart altogether from the enormous staffs of officials, as well as the army of detectives that have to be kept up to prevent smuggling on all this net-work of frontiers.

The analogy we are hearing perpetually between Ireland and America is of no value at all in the argument. America, with 3,000,000 square miles, is a huge self-contained continent with only one fiscal barrier. You could travel across America 3,000 or 4.000 miles without having to open your bag. It is a huge free trade continent, and the conditions that apply to America do not apply here. All Americans are not satisfied with their fiscal policy, and a number of intelligent Americans say it is wrong. In that huge continent there is only one fiscal barrier, and we in a small State are setting up suicidal fiscal barriers. I should like to read a few words from the address of Mr. Walter Leaf to the International Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Leaf is a banker and a student of practical economics. He said:—

"The whole standard of living is lowered by the artificial restrictions on human efficacy. A European Trade League would have open markets on at least the same scale as those of the United States, and would thus be able to compete in production on equal terms with that vast area of free-trade intercourse. National jealousies force us here to employ in suicidal trade struggles the efforts which should be concentrated on the general advancement of human well-being."

I stress that part, "human well-being." We all ought to play our part for the welfare of humanity in general, and that is as far as one could go, but one who will go that far will accept the doctrine of free trade when applied to large enough areas. No doubt, Germany before the war built up a sound position on her fiscal unity. There were no internal barriers, and, in the same way, I would support the Government in any policy that tends towards Imperial free trade. That seems to be the obvious line of development amongst our own kith and kin. We are a big Empire—I see one Senator shakes his head, but I think he has many associations with that great Empire and has in his time rendered distinguished services to it, and I am sure he would be the last to deny it. There is the natural line of development, an Empire self-contained. If there were a move in that direction, and so far there has not been, I would support the Government. I am opposed to this small policy of economic isolation, and I will continue to be strongly opposed to it. These are the general principles. I am asking that this Bill should be rejected and not on the broad issue, for the broad issue has been already prejudiced. We have got as I say 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of our commodities already protected without any mandate from our people. The harm is done, and so far as this Bill is likely to extend the policy of protection without a mandate from the people I would ask that it be rejected.

I support the Second Reading. I would like to have a further explanation of the Bill from the Minister. As far as I can gather the effects from this Bill when it becomes law will be an advantage to the community as a whole. The Minister does not expect definite recommendations from the Commission he proposes to set up, but he expects a thorough investigation of facts. I think, in the present condition of the community, that is certainly a consummation to be wished for—a thorough investigation of the facts in connection with tariffs. The Minister tells us we may hope for that in this Bill, and I am sure we hope for it, and if we get it from the Bill it will be useful. That is the reason why I support the proposal. If the facts to be collected by the Commission, as pointed out in the schedule, are all collected, then all matters arising therefrom, we are told, will be issued in a White Paper, except confidential information, and will be available to the community which is now uninformed in the matter. One of the Deputies, speaking in the Dáil for the farming community, said that the information which the average person has in reference to tariffs and their effect on the country is most inaccurate. Deputy Heffernan believes that the present information of the people is most inaccurate. This Bill proposes to set up a Commission to make inquiries to collect evidence from people who have a thorough knowledge of the facts in connection with tariffs, and their implications on the industries, as a whole, apparently, will be gleaned from their advice. That is all to be desired. My fear is that the composition of the Commission, as was pointed out in the other House, leaves something to be desired. The Executive Council are of opinion that the best work can be done by civil servants. I am of opinion that the best work would not be done by civil servants. I am strongly of opinion that the best work would be done, as it is done in Canada by the Tariff Board there, by men of expert opinion. On the Tariff Commission of Canada there is one representative of the farming industry, one representative of the manufacturing interests, and another represents Parliamentary interests. If the Bill arranged for a Commission of that sort, then I think it would be a good Bill. I think it is essential that in a Commission of this sort we should have people with a broad national outlook. Our country, whatever may be thought to the contrary, is in its infancy. Whatever may be thought of a sound economic policy of free trade we should not be expected to go wholeheartedly into a free trade policy where we ourselves would have no voice at all in the shaping of commerce and policies hoped for by doctrinaire free traders. The South African Board, as you know, was set up to examine existing tariffs. We here have existing tariffs, but in the Bill no arrangement is made for the examination of them. I think that is a flaw in the Bill. Existing tariffs, and we have a few as Senator Sir John Keane has pointed out, should be continually kept sight of, and their implications and effects on the community should be considered from day to day. I would like the Tariff Commission to take notice of the various implications arising from the existing tariffs.

One knows, unfortunately, that tariffs have a tendency to create trusts, monopolies and things of that sort. I am sorry that the Tariff Commission did not get a better basis for selecting information than they have been given in the Bill. None of those reasons, I think, would lead anyone to desire that this Bill, which at all events is a step in the right direction, should be the last word in this matter. This Bill will create a body of evidence as regards tariffs, their operation and their effect on existing industries and other industries that may be built up, and as I think we, in this nation, require that information, a Second Reading should be given to the Bill. It is up to to any of us, who desire, to move amendments in Committee. I have no doubt such will arise, but I accept the Bill as a contribution to the problem and I certainly hope to vote for the Second Reading.

I regard this Bill as making no adequate or honest attempt to deal with the great question which the Government is beginning to find awkward, but having listened to the speech of Senator Sir John Keane I am compelled to support the Bill and all I have to say is, as a tariff reformer, if the case put up by Senator Sir John Keane is the best that a man of his ability can put up, the tariff reform question is on very safe ground. Senator Sir John Keane referred to the committee of experts that had been set up to inquire into this matter in the early years of the Government. There were five professors of political economy irreverently referred to as "the fiscal five." A member of the Dáil referred to them as the text book economists and said they would sink an empire, but it is rather peculiar that one of the members was engaged during a period of his life in the business of constructing wagons and cars, and the only thing they came to the conclusion should be protected was the one thing one of them had practical experience of.

I agree with Senator Sir John Keane with regard to the personnel of this Commission. Even if civil servants were the best qualified men to serve on this Commission they should not be selected. It is very wrong of the Government to appoint men who are certain to report on matters which will inevitably be party politics, and to bring those men under criticism where they are not free to answer criticism directed against whatever they may report, but they are not, in my view, the best qualified to deal with it. I agree that a retired judge would be better as a chairman. The men best qualified to deal with those questions at present are men of good, sound, horse sense. We hear a great deal from Senator Sir John Keane about the qualifications of economists. Every canon of political economy at the present time in Europe has no application to the actual facts of trade. I think Senator Sir John Keane should know that. As an example, recently in England their trade was paralysed by a general strike and their exports were very restricted within the first ten days of that strike. The week after that strike started the English rate of exchange reached a higher point in comparison with the American exchange than it had done for the last five years. You have there the A, B, C, of political economy, the law of supply and demand. You have, in England at the moment, abundant raw material, abundant machinery for the production of goods, you have sources of distribution and you have on the continent a great demand for those goods. You have there the supply, method of distribution, and the demand, and trade does not ensue, notwithstanding the fact that there are a tremendous number of unemployed in England, simply because there is no stability in the rates of exchange and no real relation between the internal purchasing-power of the currency in those foreign countries. That has a relation to international exchanges. I think Senator Sir John Keane knows that, but he did not animadvert on it.

We take the wrong view of free trade. We have had it since it was imposed to suit the requirements of industrial England. We have had a long train of emigration ever since, and at present we lose the population of a town the size of Limerick every year in order to justify the long view. The best way of keeping people idle is to import goods we should make ourselves and pay outsiders to make them for you. Is England, the home of doctrinaire free traders, any longer free trade? It is not. The electorate have not been yet educated up to voting for a system of tariff reform or protection, but in the last Finance Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England an essential for the safeguarding of industry—brown paper—was duly protected. When you see trades in the state of development of shipping, steel, the textiles in Lancashire and Yorkshire applying for protection you come to a very strange pass in the home of doctrinaire free trade. Senator Sir John Keane said there was no relation between America and this country and that they could not be compared. I agree, but there is a relation between Denmark and this country and between Belgium and Holland and this country. They are all great agricultural countries, all having much to teach us even in the production of agricultural products, and they are highly protected countries. Denmark, which up to recently was a free trade country, has adopted and is continuing to adopt very high protective tariffs.

The Senator has referred to three countries as being highly protected. He has only developed the point in regard to one. Will he develop the point with regard to Holland and Belgium?

I am not prepared, with detail, to do that at the moment. If it will suit Senator Sir John Keane, I will put down an amendment which will enable me to refer to those matters in detail on the Committee Stage. Incidentally, I should like to remind the Senator that Holland and Belgium are protected countries. Senator Sir John Keane is a free trader but he will not object to a programme of protection on the imperial scale. If I get the protection that is afforded in Canada, Australia or New Zealand I will accept it at once. We do accept it at the present time. We accept it inasmuch as in respect of any article that we put a tariff upon, imperial preference is granted to these countries within the British Empire.

I would like to refer to one or two points in the Bill which, I think need some attention. The preamble sets out that it is an Act to provide for the establishment of a Commission to report to the Minister for Finance on proposals. Are the labours of this Tariff Commission really only to be the concern of the Department of Finance? I presume that it will mean the protection of particular industries if the Minister approves of their recommendations. In that case I suggest that the proper Minister to whom they should report would be the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Otherwise, if we are simply speaking of revenue and taxes; I do not think it is necessary to set up a Commission. When the Minister for Finance gave a remission in the duties on tea and sugar he was not, as far as I know, prompted to do so by any commission. When he gave a grant of £600,000 in aid of agricultural rates, which after all might be regarded as a subsidy to agriculture, he did not need a commission of civil servants or outsiders to help him to do it. I regard this and I think the House and the country regard it, as the establishment of a commission to consider all the cases that can be put up for protective duties on certain industries.

Clause 2 states that the Minister, on application from a particular section who wish to have a case investigated, may refer it to the Commission. I would like to have the Minister's view as to why that word should not be "shall" instead of "may." If the Minister's view is that only questions affecting such industries as the Minister may select may be referred to the Commission, I think this Bill is not giving this country what a great many people think. In connection with this matter generally, we pay what is called the dole to the unemployed, we pay subsidies for housing which I approve, and we pay subsidies on other things, and those who say that the cost of living will be increased by protective duties should have regard to the fact that we do not allow our unemployed to starve now.

Perhaps I should qualify that statement. We give them relief and keep them in a sort of semi-starved subsidisation. I would far prefer to let them work, even though it costs a little more, for a time until industry in this country gets on a paying basis. Then there will be time to reconsider these matters. For the present, at all events, we have the fact that our free trade policy has resulted in the country largely going out of cultivation, in the population decreasing, and in a permanent load of unemployment, with which we are not able effectually to deal under free trade. Even if a system of tariff reform resulted in a slight increase in the cost of living— and it does not necessarily follow—I believe it would be better than to continue the existing state of affairs.

We have listened to two interesting speeches on the subject of protection and tariff reform. As I understand the Bill, it deals with neither of these subjects. It is, as I have understood it, and as it was introduced by the Minister in a very clear speech in the Dáil, a Bill simply and solely to enable questions of tariffs to be thoroughly investigated by the Commission. In the other House and in this House Deputies and Senators seem to have considered that it was a Bill for the introduction of either tariff reform or free trade, whichever suited their particular aspirations. As I understand it, what it does is to set up a statutory body of intelligent individuals to inquire into and to report to the Government on proposals that are laid before them for or against the imposition of a tariff. The Government, under the Bill say they will not put anything before the Commission on Government behalf, and that it is to be left entirely to those people who have interests that they wish to have investigated to bring forward their proposals before the Commission. That is, I think, as it should be. It also excludes organisations which have either free trade activities in view or industrial development. It provides that these should not be allowed to appear before the Commission.

Then, again, one has to remember that if the Commission recommend the imposition of any tariff, that has to go in the first instance before the Executive Council who, I take it, will examine closely the reports of the Commission. It will then have to go for legislative enactment to the Houses of the Oireachtas, so that I think anybody who is interested on one side or the other—in protection or tariff reform—will be certainly protected before any measure of protection or free trade is enacted by the legislature. I welcome the Bill, and I think it is a useful measure. It introduces order into what was a very difficult position for the Government. They were unable to get information that was necessary for the purposes of determining whether a tariff should or should not be imposed. They have now proposed to set up this Commission, composed as I say, of intelligent individuals who will go very closely into the different matters set before them, and will then put before the Government what is right and proper. I welcome the Bill, and I hope it will have the support of the House.

I also support the Bill. I would be, on the many abstract questions raised, in very large agreement with Senator Sir John Keane, but I cannot at all agree with his conclusion that this Bill should be rejected. I am not now dealing with details or suggesting that every detail in the Bill is the best possible way of dealing with the matter, but with the main question of the setting up of a commission of inquiry into matters of tariffs, I believe that in a country of this kind it is prima facie, the best method. The alternative means either of two things: It means that you would have, by the differences between political parties, a vague issue as to whether tariffs or free trade are good for the country, with no proper investigation as to whether any particular tariff is of itself desirable or is of itself justifiable. The result is that a party comes into power, on the one hand pledged to free trade, and finding it practically impossible because of its pledge to deal with a tariff, for which, in the case of a struggling industry, a perfectly good case might conceivably be made; or alternatively, you get—what is far more probable—a party coming into power pledged absolutely to tariff reform, unable to resist the most absurd proposals for protection and—what I do not think is likely to happen in this country at present, but what is a great danger in other countries—you might have powerful, wealthy vested interests with large interests in the party in power who would be able to obtain tariffs which would be very good generally for their own interests but which would not be of any advantage to the country as a whole.

Senator Sir John Keane feels that this Bill was the result of party tactics. I support the Bill because I believe that it will very largely go towards the elimination of party tactics in the matter of tariffs. I understand that the introduction of this Bill means that the Government—or the Oireachtas, if it supports them—are not committing themselves to a definite policy of tariff reform. If I thought that this Bill meant that we pledge ourselves to putting a tariff on everything we can, and that we are setting up a body to whitewash us in doing it, I should certainly oppose the Bill. I believe that the Government are desirous that the case for and the case against the various tariffs which have been proposed in different parts of the country should be heard, and my belief is that the hearing of these in public will do more to create an intelligent understanding of whether or not there should be protection than all the various arguments as to the abstract millennium that is to come through tariff reform, or as to the terrible dangers of free trade.

I agree with Senator Sir John Keane that the abolition of present tariffs, or of tariffs which may be introduced, should be referable to the Commission, and I would like to see an amendment to that effect introduced. I also join with Senator Sir John Keane in having grave doubts as to the wisdom of providing for the compulsory attendance of witnesses and the compulsory production of books. I think it is quite possible that a time will come when that might be necessary, but I think we ought to try to do without it. The view I would take is this, that if a particular firm, advocating a particular tariff, put up their witnesses, or if, alternatively, other interests oppose that tariff, and they do not disclose what the Commission consider to be necessary evidence, then their evidence should simply go by the board. That would be a sufficient incentive. This case has no analogy with another commission, where there would be more necessity for getting evidence. However, I do not regard that as a very important matter, but I feel it is a pity that it has been introduced. The Commission is to have complete power to decide as to the admission or exclusion of the public to or from its sittings. I would prefer that it should be provided that the public should be admitted, except when the evidence is of such a nature that it would be injurious to the business with which the witness was concerned if it were given in public. I think that unquestionably the rule should be that evidence should be heard in public, and I think the view of the Commission will be that the public should hear the case made for a tariff so that others, who might consider the tariff would injure their business, would have a full opportunity of putting up a case against it. One of the strong arguments against vague tariffs and general protection is that it is extremely difficult, indeed, by means of tariffs to assist one industry without seriously injuring another industry which is also giving employment.

I support the idea of a Commission, if it was only for the reason that I very much dislike the present method. A person or a firm, or even a large industry, which may be affected, knows nothing whatever of the proposals for the protection of an industry with which they are concerned until the Minister's Budget speech. They know nothing of the proposals that have come before him; they know nothing of the arguments that have been put up to him, and when it is almost too late, at any rate, when it is extremely difficult indeed to change it—because everybody recognises how very difficult it is for a Minister to go back on his Budget speech, apart from Party and other considerations, and generally it is not very desirable to do so—the industries to which it refers know nothing of the circumstances, and it is generally too late then for them to put their case against the particular duty or their case for modification or for certain exemptions with regard to the duty. That is another reason why I believe the setting up of the Commission is desirable. I do not agree with Senator Sir John Keane in his advocacy of possible Imperial preference or, as he put it, Imperial free trade. I do not know how we are going to get that preference in any way that would be satisfactory until there is pretty general protection all round, when you might give preference to different portions of the Commonwealth. But that, to my mind, gives away the case for protection, because it is quite conceivable, without any breach of good faith or friendliness, that we might find that the largest member was the one against which we required to be protected. I do not think that you can deal with that on the abstract question of Imperial free trade or Imperial protection.

The last point to which I wish to refer is the composition of the Commission. Senator Dowdall produced a very surprising argument. He referred to a former commission, and he said that the only proposal for protection put up by them was one in which one member of the Commission had been at one time personally interested in and had knowledge of. It seems to me that that is exactly the case against that kind of person. I am not at all referring to the individual, and I am sure that Senator Dowdall will appreciate that. I am showing the difficulty of producing persons, however expert, from outside. I am not sure that the proposal to have three civil servants is the best, but I think it is very much better than to have three, four or five chosen from various persons interested. We had from Senator Bennett a reference to the Canadian Commission on which he said there were agricultural interests, industrial interests, and Parliamentary interests. My belief is that an effective Commission should not have any specific interests represented as such, and unless the Government would be prepared to pay a chairman of wide experience, who would be a whole-time official and who would have no other interests, I believe that three civil servants would be the best. I would prefer the former if the State would be prepared to pay, but we know what has been said about economy, and we know how difficult it is to get a person of that standing unless a pretty high salary is paid. On the whole, I support the Bill, but emphatically I do not support it in the belief that it will lead to wholesale indiscriminate protection. I support it because I believe that a great many of the proposals that will be put up will not hold water when brought before the public. Although I am in the main a free trader, I would not be afraid of protection if, after a full and open investigation, it is shown that it would be of benefit to the country that particular industries should be protected.

I feel I must support the amendment of Senator Sir John Keane and vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, firstly because of its appearance at the very end of the session when members of both Houses are anxious to get away and when there is very little chance of the subject matter of the Bill getting any serious or intelligent consideration. I oppose the Bill secondly on a ground more important still, namely, of the restricted powers of the proposed Commission. I do not believe at all that there is any sincerity behind the Bill. I believe the statement that it is an ingenious device for postponing a serious split in the Government ranks is the correct explanation of the Bill. The Government responsibility in this very important matter is, now, to a very great extent, to devolve upon three civil servants appointed by three separate Ministers who are possibly themselves divided upon this particular question. Three civil servants are, in effect, to act as arbitrators between two opposing party factions. I notice that both sides to the controversy claim this as a victory. It is true that it is a victory for the whole party of the two divisions inasmuch as it puts in the background for the moment what might otherwise be a serious cleavage. But I think the main victory has been with those who are known as whole-hog protectionists because the Bill deliberately restricts the powers of the Commission to consider anything except application from people interested in tariffs.

Senator Bennett and others support this Bill, they tell us, because it is going to educate us on the difficult question of tariffs. It is going to do nothing of the kind. Senator Sir John Keane may be a doctrinaire free trader but I think it is pretty clear that Senator Dowdall is a doctrinaire protectionist. In regard to this Bill Senator Dowdall can put the Commission in motion but Senator Sir John Keane cannot. Section 2, sub-section (1) lays down the procedure by which the Commission can be set in motion: "Whenever an application is made to the Minister for Finance by any person substantially representative of the persons engaged or proposing to engage in the production in Saorstát Eireann of goods of any particular class or description for the imposition, modification or renewal of a customs duty on the importation of goods of that class or description, the said Minister may, if he so thinks fit, refer such application to the Commission." So to do anything you have to have an industry, and a representative of that industry which is interested in the imposition, modification or renewal of a tariff or the modification of a tariff already existing. But if you are the representative of an industry not protected but vitally affected by a tariff on other industries, you cannot go to the Commission and ask them to modify or to remove the tariff on the other industry. It would look as if the experience gained, such as it is from existing tariffs, is to be completely ignored probably because the facts that they might disclose would be rather unpleasant.

Might I call the Senator's attention to sub-section (3) of Section 2?

Yes. The Commission have power under that sub-section to send for persons and papers and to examine witnesses, but those witnesses cannot get the Commission to move, in the first instance, so that there can be no move except along the lines of protection.

Is that clear? The sub-section says the Commission shall hear every person who desires so to be heard.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Senator O'Farrell's point is a distinct one. The power to initiate is confined to persons claiming renewal or the imposition of a tariff. There is no power to initiate inquiry on the part of persons opposed to tariffs. Is not that your point, Senator O'Farrell?

Yes. That is the point. I am not arguing the case for protection or free trade, but I say if there is to be a Commission, it should be empowered to review the whole field and if the power to initiate is on the one side, equally that power to initiate should be on the other. Distinctly, that power is not with the other side as the Bill now stands. I understand that the South African Board is very largely the inspiration for this proposed Tariff Commission.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Of course, that difficulty would be very easily got over by the mere insertion of the word "abolition" into the sub-section.

It could. But I doubt very much if the Government propose, to accept an alteration of that kind, judging by their attitude in the Dáil. Now the South African Commission or Board has very much wider powers. Here are some of its duties:

"To hear and examine complaints and recommendations which may be made as to the working of the Customs and Excise tariffs and to advise the Government in regard to the recasting of the Customs tariff and the adjustment of anomalies which may from time to time occur in these tariffs and such action as may be necessary or advisable for assisting and developing the industries of the Union and such other matters as the Government may refer to the Board for its consideration and advice."

There are no such powers inherent in this Commission. It has no initiative of its own. It has to wait until the Minister passes on to it some application on the part of some industry looking for a tariff. It is strange that although the Minister, in his Budget speech on the 21st April last, foreshadowed the setting up of such a Commission, the Bill setting it up was only introduced towards the end of the session.

I do not know whether there was a big Party struggle regarding the terms of the proposed Bill or not, but the Government, certainly, did not give to either House sufficient time to consider amendments seriously. We have been so busy during the last week or two, giving Second Readings to Bills, that there is not time left to consider the amendment of any of them. Now, the South African Board, also, has very useful and very necessary powers in cases in which industries are protected. Here are some of these powers:

"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."

Tariffs generally encourage trusts, combines, corners and rings, and any Commission set up, to inquire into applications for additional tariffs, should have power to examine for the protection of the community the possible creation of such trusts. No such power is conferred or proposed to be conferred upon this Commission by this Bill.

Has it not got that power in the present Schedule in paragraph 9?

"Such other economic, industrial, and administrative aspect of the application as appear to the Commission to be relevant to the determination of the merits and demerits of the application." I doubt very much if it does. That is a rather vague clause, and it refers only to a particular application. If it was considered desirable to give such definite powers to the South African Board, I think it is equally desirable that it should be put into this Bill. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget statement of 1925, said that after that Budget the Government would not break any further fresh ground in the matter of tariffs before the general election. He has, however, departed to a certain extent from that pledge, and it looks as if responsibility for a further breach is now to be placed on these three civil servants composing the Commission. I do not think that that is a desirable policy, and the Commission should, at all events, have some idea as to where the Government are drifting, whether they are, more or less, inclined to a general system of tariffs, to restrictive tariffs, or to free trade.

The question regarding the composition of the Commission is a rather difficult one to decide. There are arguments for the type of men who will compose it, and there are arguments against that type. Senator Bennett, I think, it was who said that we want people with a broad national view. I do not know what that means. Generally a person claims that the people who take his point of view have a broad national view, though it very often is a very shallow view, just as broad waters run shallow as a rule. I take it that in this case men with a broad national view would be men in favour of wholesale tariffs. All things concerned, it probably would be better to get civil servants than men with a broad national view, and to have men who, at the same time, would be impartial in their investigations and findings. On the whole, I do not think that the Government is sincere in regard to the Bill. I do not think that it hopes to get any real serious and intelligent education on the whole question of tariffs from it. I think it is merely a device for putting off what, to them, is a serious matter, namely, a cleavage in their party. It may get them over the next budget or the next general election, but that is no reason why the Bill should be rushed here. It certainly is no justification why it should be passed in its, present form. The Commission will have to run in blinkers and cannot turn to the right or left to see the pitfalls that may await them. It is merely kicking us along in a certain direction, and nobody can look to see in what direction we are going, or look to the right or left. For that reason, I think that the Bill should wait until the autumn, so that it may get further consideration, and so that further time be given for amendments.

I am opposed to the Bill but I am not in agreement altogether with those who have spoken. I am opposed to the Bill because I believe, as Senator O'Farrell says, it is merely a political makeshift for a certain purpose. It is well known that certain members of the Ministry have one point of view and that other members have another point of view. The Minister for Finance, whatever he is now, has been a free trader.

Where did you find that out?

I heard him make a speech at the Dublin Industrial Development Association three or four years ago which was very strongly free trade. I think he will not deny that, whatever his opinions may be now.

He did not hear me say that, I am sure.

I am not at all in agreement with Senator MacLoughlin who says that because a man thought in a certain way three or four years ago he must think in the same way now. If a Minister wishes to change his opinion there is no reason why he should not do so. I suppose we all do it some time or another. Senator Sir John Keane asked us to take a long view in these matters. Taking a long view might mean making a long speech, and I do not want to go quite as far as that. I think it is necessary, considering that Britain is only one of a few free trade countries, to see what the free trade notion means. When I was young, free trade was a religion; it is now a superstition. It originated in England, which was not at all times a free trade country—very far from it. I suppose it had the closest protection policy in the world. The mercantile system was a system by which everybody, upon whom England could put her hands, by force or otherwise, was bound to trade with her, either in her ships or in some other way. Ireland was forced into that position until she revolted, and it was the same with America. That system continued for a long time and it was through that close system of protection that England built up her industry. She did not change that system until it suited her. I do not deny that free trade is very useful for some countries. I do not deny that it has been enormously useful to Britain. She built up a position in which she was able to supply products to all the world much cheaper than anybody else. In addition, she had her own coal and she controlled rich countries like India. She was thus able practically to control all the industries in the world.

When she got into that position she acted wisely by saying: "Now we will become free traders and everybody must deal with us. As we are not importing much, and are exporting a great deal, the more free trade we have the better." The English wisely adopted that policy and persuaded a good many people to adopt it also, but these people mostly found out what it meant. It was forced on us, whether we liked it or not, in Ireland and we know that it ruined our industries. With a population of eight millions we are now left with one of only four millions. That system was built up originally on the very plausible theory that it is necessary to buy in the cheapest market. That is a very attractive idea, and it is at the bottom of most of the free trade policy at present. It does not, however, work out. The first thing any country has to do is to get control of its home markets, and, when it has done that, it can afford to export. Senator Jameson made that point very clearly. He was dealing with one particular industry, that of whiskey, and he pointed out that if Ireland lost control of the home markets in whiskey it would lose immediately, and on account of that, its export trade. That statement is, I think, perfectly true and applies not only to whiskey but to every other industry. The first thing a country must have is control of its home markets and, having got that, it can afford to export. I do not mean a home market in every commodity, as every country depends to some extent on others and must import certain things, but it must have control of the home market in the important things which it uses. It cannot have that control until it gets protection. A rich country, with its manufactures, machinery, and wealth, can shut down the industry of a neighbouring country at once by dumping goods on it. I remember many years ago, when Dublin was bringing over paving setts from Wales, that Parnell, who had quarries in Wicklow, offered to supply the Dublin Corporation with paving setts as cheaply as those which they could get from Wales.

What happened? The Corporation hesitated a good deal about the contract, and immediately the Welsh owners came along and said that they would supply the setts 20 per cent. cheaper. I think the Corporation eventually decided in favour of the Wicklow setts. What would have happened in that case? The Welsh firm was a rich one, and could afford to sell cheaper for a time, but eventually, having smashed its competitors, it could raise the prices again. I remember that some years ago Lord Kingston, who took a great interest in the Arigna mines, sent some iron over to England to have it tried in a foundry there. The report that came back was that it was the best iron that could be got, but that if Lord Kingston intended to start an iron industry in Ireland they would take steps to shut him down in a month. They could have done so by selling their manufactures at half the price at which they could be produced in Ireland. It seems to me that it is necessary that there should be protection for industries until we get control of the home market. When we have done that we can consider what should then be done. That cannot be done in a year. Some people complain if it is not done in a year, but they should remember that we have had free trade for many years, swamping the country with the products of other countries. They should remember that we cannot change in one year a system that has been in operation for 70 years. We must get time.

Free trade smashed the industries of this country and protection must build them up. Prices should not necessarily be increased by protection. To a certain extent, prices may be increased, and I believe that certain manufacturers, according to what I have heard, are taking advantage and are raising prices in proportion to the amount of protection given. I heard that from people who have some knowledge of these matters. That is a position that should be looked into, and the prices charged investigated. Senator Sir John Keane says that we should have imperial protection or imperial free trade, as he chooses to call it. It is the same thing, and means protection against people who are outside the empire. That means practically free trade for England, so that she can swamp all the other countries with goods that can be cheaply produced in England. That is why I disapprove of the suggestion. I have nothing to say against the empire. It is there, and it does not concern me very much now. It did at one time but not now. I have no desire to do any harm to South Africa, Australia or Canada, but I do not see why we should sacrifice our interests for them. I notice that the people of these countries are not very much interested in us. England did not sacrifice herself for us and why should we in Ireland sacrifice our interest merely for the empire, which is merely a matter of talk and does not exist? If there was any real protection or any basis for encouraging protection in this Bill I would support it. As far as I can understand it, and as far as I can gather from the discussions that took place in the Dáil, this Bill is a makeshift.

We have had a long discussion on the different issues concerning free trade and protection, and I think that the House would now like to hear what the Minister has to say about the Bill. I doubt if all the principles involved in free trade or protection are contained in the Bill.

CATHAOIRLEACH

This is a very important Bill and Senators may regard it from different points of view. Some Senator may think it an administrative Bill, and others may think that it gets to the root of two great controversial issues. I do not want to prevent the Minister from speaking now, but I think he would prefer to hear the whole position discussed and not to deal with it piecemeal. If any other Senator wishes to take part I think he should express his view before the Minister replies.

I would like to hear the Minister now, and Senators might be allowed to make any remarks they wish afterwards. I intended to refer to some difficulties that I think require explanation.

CATHAOIRLEACH

So far as the nature of the Bill is concerned, a child can understand it. It is plain as a pikestaff. What is behind it, or what may result from it, lies in the great unknown.

I am in agreement with your views, sir, that the Bill is a very simple one and that a child could understand it. So far the discussion has been more or less academic, as to the relative merits of free trade or protection. We all know that free trade may be a very good thing for one country, according to the conditions obtaining in it, and that protection may be a very good thing for another country. If that were not so there would be no such thing as free trade or protected countries. To-day we have a number of countries with a protective policy, and side by side with them we have other countries with a free trade policy. But it does not follow that next year or the year after the same conditions will obtain. There are countries such as England, where there is a departure from this protectionist policy. The instance given by Senator Colonel Moore shows itself rather as an argument in favour of a very close examination of the conditions in our country. England laid its foundations on a protectionist policy. When it had, as a result of that policy, trained its people and had a large army of skilled artisans, so that outside nations could not compete with it in manufactures, it took down the barriers. But those manufacturers outside could not come in and compete against English manufacturers then. As a result of that England got all her raw materials at her own price from these foreign countries and developed this raw material into the finished product. But even with that policy England, as a matter of fact, is not to-day a free trade country. If you take up the Customs schedule you will find that there is a multiplicity of items there on which a tariff is imposed. Her preferential policy is a tariff in disguise.

This Bill here does not advocate protection or free trade. The Commissioners are asked to inquire into the prospects, if any, each industry, in respect of which an application is made, has of establishing itself eventually on a permanent basis without the continued aid of a customs duty or with a modification of such duty after a period. That is absolutely sound. I think that any country that has natural advantages for the setting up of any particular industry ought not to be hampered either through want of private enterprise or a subvention from the central fund to put that industry on foot. Otherwise there is nothing for us to do but to open all our doors and let all countries, whether helped by favourable exchange or otherwise, send in what we require for our existence here, and let us live in that way. But what about our people? What about our growing population? How is emigration to be checked? Is it not a natural thing and the natural responsibility of any Government that it should look forward to try, either by a policy of protection or otherwise, and secure employment for its people? That is a very natural thing to do. Reference has been made to the personnel of the Commission. I have opened this Bill and I find there is no classification at all. It does not necessarily mean that civil servants will be appointed on this Commission. The Bill clearly says that the Commission shall consist of three members of whom one, who shall be Chairman, shall be nominated by the Minister for Finance and so on. That is a very wide range from which to select. As a matter of fact the Commission can be selected from the whole population of the Free State, and its membership is not confined to the civil service at all. Nobody and certainly no business man, no matter how he may be disposed towards the protectionist policy, would advocate indiscriminate protection. I do not think anybody would do that. Anybody who had any trade knowledge or any knowledge of business or who had studied the conditions of business in other countries, knows that all countries have had to change their policy in this matter from time to time. I do not think that anybody will find fault with what the Government has done in this country, in the matter of sugar-beet. We found after examination that we could grow beet in this country with a saccharine percentage higher than in other countries that have made the beet industry a success, and have provided employment for their people in the industry. That being so, the basis was there. We had first to induce the farmers to assemble together and consider this project of growing sugar beet. They had to be given some form of guarantee. Some form of guarantee had to be given both to those who were to put down the capital for the erection of the factories and also to the men who were to grow the raw materials. Why? Because the capital involved, the initial expenditure of setting up plant and machinery, was too large for private enterprise. The hazard was too great. That hazard was not in the capacity of the country to produce the raw material, but there was a hazard in the continuity of the supply of the raw material. There were factors there that were doubtful, that is to say, that the farmer might break away if he happened to have bad seasons for his beet, and he might go back to a competitive crop like mangolds from which he might get better results, leaving the beet factory in the Saorstát high and dry. The Government saw that this was a scheme suitable to this climate and to this country. Why was it suitable? Because we have made our tests and we find that we can produce the raw material in abundance and that that raw material is of much higher saccharine quality than the raw material produced elsewhere where this industry has been a success. That is the base and the bed-rock of the position. The Government agreed to give this subsidy and they were well advised in so doing, apart altogether from the consequences that follow in the great amount of employment that has been given, and that will be given when this industry is set up in more than one centre.

Take the sugar cane industry in Australia. In the early days England sent out to Australia everything that the colonists required. It paid them to do so. They sent out their manufactured goods because they wanted ballast for their ships and this was part of the return cargo taken to Australia, whence wheat was brought on the homeward voyage. Therefore they loaded up in their ships leaving England everything that the colonists required, and in the old sailing days they made the rest up in ballast. In time, however, the colonists got together, after they had got some form of self-government, and they saw that there were great potentialities in the soil and climate of Australia to supply their own needs and to give employment. The result was that an embargo was put on sugar and they established a cane sugar industry. They quite reversed the process. Now Australia is sending sugar all over the world. This question of protection versus free trade affects every country in the world. I would say that the setting up of a commission of this sort, if you get the right sort of men, is the proper way to get about it. You are committed to nothing. The only drawback I see is that the terms are not broad enough and the initiative is left to a group of individuals who must put up their case to the tribunal first. This may be ruled out, and possibly with the Minister's concurrence a suitable amendment might be brought in so as to broaden the terms of reference. The thing is that we have got to get as impartial men as we possibly can get. You must have men of experience, ability and integrity certainly, and you must have men who have at their disposal the fullest possible information. There is nothing more detrimental or dangerous or hazardous in an inquiry of this sort than a recommendation for introducing a tariff without a careful examination previously. Provision is made here that they can hand in their information in writing or in secret. It is absolutely essential that they get the fullest information. Half information or part information in this matter may do irreparable injury. When you put on a tariff it is only in the course of a year or two or three that you find out the great mischief that is being done, if you have not, when putting it on, the fullest information. It may take you possibly 20 or 30 years to remedy the evil, because a matter like that dislocates industry and throws everything out of gear in the machinery. People set themselves in a certain direction and then they find themselves on the wrong track. The people who have studied these problems in other countries understand and realise the great dangers that arise through want of a careful examination. I do not want to detain the Seanad any longer beyond saying that the Bill in its context and in its intentions is entirely worthy of the support of the Seanad.

I do not intend to pursue the line adopted by many Senators who spoke, by dealing with side issues. It did strike me as very strange that a Senator of the type of Senator Dowdall should seem inclined to support this Bill whilst at the same time attributing to those who initiated this measure the motive that in a way it might help to bolster up differences within the Government Party. Directly or indirectly he attributed that motive to those who initiated the measure, yet he finds himself prepared to support the Bill. That is a peculiar line of reasoning. He followed up the arguments of Senator Sir John Keane and he allowed himself to arrive at rather peculiar conclusions.

One statement he made, the relevancy of which I cannot find, was to the effect that the English pound reached its peak point shortly after the opening of the strike in England. I fail to see what bearing that had on the question of the acceptance or rejection of this Bill. The English pound reached its peak point shortly after the strike was on in England for the simple reason that the world began to recognise that England had mastered the Labour difficulty and England's credit began to soar. That really was the reason why the English pound reached its peak point shortly after the opening of the strike.

The Senator stated, moreover, that emigration was entirely attributable to the pursuance of England's free trade policy in Ireland. I wonder if that is entirely true. To me it seems that emigration is in a great degree due to the fact that the resources of this country, the ability and energy of the youth of the country particularly, were utilised for a long period, instead of building up industries, in the national struggle, and emigration is largely due to that fact rather than to the pursuance of England's free trade policy on our part. The Senator referred, in addition, to the Committee which was set up. The only commodity upon which any of those who formed the Committee thought it advisable to recommend protection was a commodity in which one of them was personally interested. Senator Douglas, interpreting that remark of Senator Dowdall's, showed the difficulty of getting people who would hold the scales impartially.

Following what Senator Dowdall said, it strikes me that most of the people who are interested in protection and the furtherance of protection are people imbued with very material considerations and with very strong desires of gaining something personally in the matter. I do not think this is the line upon which you should study this question.

There is no necessity for me to go over the arguments in favour of protection. One point strikes me as peculiar. In the Dáil the Minister for Finance said: "Above all things I have no desire to commit the country to a general tariff policy before the electors have had an opportunity of pronouncing on the matter." I do say that underlying this Bill there is the Government intention of launching a general tariff policy in this country. The Minister for Finance has no mandate from the people in this matter. If he claims to have the mandate where is it? When did he secure it? Why is there this hurry now? The election is due within the next twelve months, and I think the Minister could wait before putting this proposal for a Tariff Commission forward.

It is said that the Government are not pursuing a general tariff policy. They are. On fifty per cent. of the commodities which enter this country, outside agricultural commodities, there is a tariff imposed. That is going a long way towards the adoption of a general tariff policy. The Minister for Finance, speaking in the Dáil, stated that the acceptance of this Commission means that they are prepared, in suitable instances where a case has been made out, to use additional tariffs for the purpose of promoting employment and industry, and the general economic advancement of the Saorstát. The Minister has signified his intention, if a suitable case is made out prior to the general election, to use additional tariffs for the purpose of promoting industry. I wonder where did the Minister get the mandate for additional tariffs? He certainly did not get it from the people.

In his Budget statement last year the Minister gave this undertaking: "After the present Budget this Government will not break any further fresh ground in the matter of protective tariffs before the general election." That was the undertaking. It may be said it was a statement of Government policy. It means nothing but a definite undertaking and I say that the Minister, notwithstanding that undertaking, is now breaking fresh ground. The Minister says that under certain circumstances, if a certain case is made out, a tariff will be put on in respect of other commodities. All this is relevant to the issue before us. The Minister has no mandate for what he is doing, and he is breaking the undertaking that he gave a little more than a year ago.

It cannot be said that the introduction of further tariffs may be regarded as experimental. The Minister has pointed out the difficulty of experimental tariffs. He has admitted the difficulty of taking them off. I wonder how he is going to take them off practically 50 per cent. of the commodities that are imported if there is a change of policy later on. The intention apparently was to have experimental tariffs, but how can they be removed now without affecting a very considerable section of the people? Senator Bennett mentioned that people required further enlightenment in regard to this matter, and in order that possible enlightenment might be given to the people he was prepared to vote for the acceptance of this Bill.

Senator Douglas said something to the same effect. He said that in the absence of this Bill the issue would be fought out at the next general election as between the different parties. He said that the acceptance of this Bill would mean that it would be cleared up for the people whether the millennium was to be reached under the tariff system or whether the country would suffer from the policy of free trade. I cannot see how people are going to be very much enlightened through this Bill. The Minister for Finance stated definitely in the Dáil that the object of the Bill was not to inquire into the general merits of free trade or protection, or to get the theory of either policy discussed in any way. I take it that the Minister knew perfectly well what was in his own mind, and he was very frank. He said the object of the Bill was not to inquire into the general merits of free trade or protection. I wonder what light are the people likely to get in the face of that statement on the part of the Minister, if this issue is raised at the next general election. The Minister also stated in the Dáil that the Commission is not to inquire into the effects of existing tariffs. Certain Senators seem to have come to the conclusion, judging by the statements they have made in the course of this debate, that the Commission will inquire into the effects of existing tariffs, but the Minister stated definitely that it was not to do so. The Minister also said that the Commission was not being set up to enable people who are whole-hog protectionists to come in and make a case for an industry with which they are not concerned. The initiative, therefore, is left to those people who simply want to make a case on behalf of the industry in which they are interested. It will be to their advantage to make a strong case, and it is not to be the definite function of any other particular section to oppose them in regard to the case they do make. I hold, therefore, that an impartial discrimination will be absent from the recommendations and decisions of the Commission. The Minister also said in the debate in the Dáil that this Bill was to enable the Government to get a full examination of the position of industries which claim protection — industries which allege that they would be in great danger of destruction within a brief period if protection were not granted to them, and particularly in the case of the claims made by certain dying industries: that unless their claims were lodged and acceded to, their destruction would come about before the general election was held. If that, as the Minister has stated, is to be the object of the Bill, then I think Senators will be disappointed in the finding of this Commission. The functions of the Commission are to be strictly limited in their scope. My opinion is that the Commission has a very difficult task before it. If the Commission is to enlighten the people before the next general election I do not see very well how this Bill is going to enable it to do so. The schedule to the Bill opens with these words: "The efficiency, extent, and relative importance of the industry in respect of which the application is made." Apparently the idea is that it will take the Commission two years to hold a proper inquiry into the efficiency of industries in respect of which applications are made. To my mind it should only take the Commission a period of a few months to make a proper inquiry as to the efficiency or otherwise with which these industries are carried on. If the Commission is going to inquire into the efficiency of all these industries, not alone industries in respect of which applications are made, but the efficiency of all the industries in the country, then I think it will be a very long time indeed before we get the report of this Commission. As I have said, one side of the case will be presented to this Commission with great cogency, clarity, and determination, but the other side will not be presented equally in any similar manner. The Minister has already stated with great frankness that practically all the industries of the country applied to be protected through a tariff. Now, when this Bill is passed we shall have an unseemly scramble, and nothing but an unseemly scramble, for protection from all these industries. They will all try to have a tariff applied in respect to their own particular line. You will have that scramble, and I am afraid that full consideration will not be given to all the circumstances if a tariff is granted, or to its reactions on the general community. That has to be taken due cognisance of. It is unnecessary to argue the question of free trade versus protection. We may retain our arguments on that for another day. In respect to this matter the Minister has no mandate from the people to impose further tariffs. He has gone further than he should have, accepting his own words. Further, he has broken an undertaking that he gave. In conclusion, I submit that this Bill is not all that we want: it is not sufficiently extensive and comprehensive in its scope and will not give us, if the issue is put before the people, the enlightenment which the people require and want.

I regret that this question of a tariff commission has not been discussed on its merits or from the point of view of what is best for the country. It seems to me that the opposition to this Bill is tinctured by political considerations and that its critics are far more desirous of scoring a point against the Government than of considering its effect on the industrial situation in this country. That is the only explanation that I can give of the very extraordinary alliance that we have in this House—an alliance in which we find Senators, who on most matters differ as widely as the poles, united in their opposition to this Bill. We have Senator Sir John Keane representing the line of imperialism in the same fold with the monster of democracy. Free traders oppose it because it is a violation of the principles of free trade, and whole-hog protectionists oppose it because they see in it a device to side-track and shelve the policy of protection. Between these extremes I think that the bulk of the plain people of this country who are not definitely committed either to free trade or protection will see in it an honest effort on the part of the Government to do what is right for the country on this thorny subject of tariffs, about which there are so many diverse opinions. As a strong supporter of the policy of tariffs I welcome the proposal of the Government. I regret that the Government did not set up this Commission before they had started on the policy of trying to help the industries of the country by means of tariffs. If they had done so they would have prevented much of the propaganda that we hear of about raising the cost of living, while the Government itself would have been saved from the charge of unscientifically applying tariffs. Personally, I think it was a blunder to put tariffs on articles that we could not produce or that were only produced in very limited quantities. I have heard people who are good protectionists say that the Government were not sincere in their policy of protection, and that they were deliberately endeavouring to make tariffs unpopular: that the Minister for Finance himself was really a doctrinaire free trader who was putting tariffs on that were bound to cost the country more. In fact the common accusation was that while his action was protectionist his voice was free trade. The hand was the hand of Esau, but the voice was the voice of Jacob.

Now this Commission will, I hope, prevent unfair criticism of that nature, and, what is more important, that it will provide machinery by which the just claims of industries for protection can be investigated, and by which tariffs can be judiciously and scientifically applied. If they are so applied they will not put an undue strain on any section. As I said, I believe in protection. I come from a Border county where the results of protection or of free trade can be, and are, closely studied, and I do not want protection to have the effect of making people pay an exorbitant price on one side of the Border for an article which they can get at a reasonable price on the other side. That kind of protection defeats itself. But I maintain that it is possible to apply protection in a way that will be of considerable benefit to industry, and at the same time not raise the cost of the article very much, if at all. I have heard it said that the result of the policy of protection up to the present is that a number of articles are coming under that full tariff and that traders are putting on an extra profit. I will take, for instance, shirts and blankets, two articles of which I know something about. Now the immediate effect of putting the very moderate tariff of 15 per cent. on shirts has been the starting of 8 new shirt factories in Co. Donegal, employing upwards of 400 hands. In the case of blankets the Irish blanket mills which were ready to close down in 1924 are now going full time, and I defy anyone to say that the price of either shirts or blankets has increased by one penny more than they were before the tariff went on. I am certain that if Senator Foran, Senator O'Farrell, or any of the Labour Senators inspect my books they will find that there is not one penny more being charged on these two commodities. In fact they are cheaper to-day than they were in 1924. If they find there is more charged for them I will become a free trader. There is no doubt that boots, though I have seen it denied, cost more owing to the fact that we have not sufficient boot factories in the country, and that the tariff is not sufficiently high to induce outside manufacturers to come in. But if this tariff had been 65 per cent. instead of 15 per cent. I venture to say boots would be cheaper than they are to-day, because people would come in and start factories here and get over the tariff, but owing to the smallness of the tariff, and the high cost of machinery for boots, the owners of these boot factories do not think it worth their while to do so.

I do not want to go far into an academic discussion on the relative merits of protection and free trade. Reference has been made here to America and Australia. I know something about the effect of tariffs in Australia. Some years ago the Australian market kept hundreds of girls employed in the shirt-making industry in Donegal. The Australian Government put a tariff on the shirts. The Derry manufacturers who were employing these workers built factories in Australia, took out trained workers, and for the last 20 years there has not been a shirt exported to Australia. The same thing happened with regard to tweeds, only much more recently. Australia used to import 4½ million pounds worth of tweeds annually, and manufacture at home about ½ million. About five years ago they made the tariff stiffer, with the result that Australia is manufacturing her own shirts and all the tweeds which she requires. We are told we cannot compare Ireland with Australia, that Australia is a large continent and we are a small island, but whether a continent or an island the problem is the same thing in both cases, and it is to find work for the people. The only way to solve that problem is to find permanent employment, and permanent employment can only be found by means of tariffs. Senator Sir John Keane has said that we could not compare with America, a huge self-contained continent with great natural and mineral resources. I would say the greater the resources — natural and mineral — of any country. the greater employment it can give to its people, and the less necessity for tariffs, but when you have a country like ours with whatever natural resources we have undeveloped, and very few mineral resources, then surely tariffs must be resorted to if we are to find employment for the people. Our farmers here must realise that agricultural development, no matter how successfully promoted, is not in itself sufficient to provide employment for all the people.

No doubt farming, being our main industry, is very important, but it is impossible for farming, no matter how high its development, to absorb all the working population. Farming is not carrying the State on its back as some of the farmer representatives said. I think it is the other way about. The farming industry has been a great source of anxiety to the State, and every section in the community has contributed to putting the farmer in the position of independence he is in to-day. Those who speak for farmers should not forget the help given them by the artisans and business people of Ireland from the days of the Land League down until the present day when we are contributing our quota in the 10 per cent. to help them out in the price of land purchase and the abolition of dual ownership. Some of the representatives of farmers speak as if the State should do nothing for any other industry, and it is impossible to take seriously or to regard as the genuine opinion of the farmers of this country some of the statements made by certain farmer Deputies in the Dáil debate on this Bill. One Deputy stated that 95 per cent. of the unemployed in this country would have a better chance of being employed through the operations of the Drainage Board than in any other industry you could mention, while another Daniel come to judgment regarded it as the natural order of things that 30,000 people should leave the country annually, so that the roseate picture of the future of this country as it presents itself to the Farmers' Party is a population of, say, one million farmers with the remainder of the people formed up in two queues, one outside the bureau for employment on drains and the other outside the emigration office.

Men with that outlook cannot see beyond their toes. They are blind to the fact that the people to gain most by the development of our secondary industries are the farmers themselves, because an increased industrial population will increase the home consumption of agricultural products. But because in the meantime they may have to pay a little more for their outfits they regard the demand for tariffs as the outcome of selfishness on the part of greedy and inefficient manufacturers. The charge of inefficiency against Irish manufacturers is not confined to the farmers alone. Representatives of Labour sometimes indulge in it; in fact, Labour seems to look upon manufacturers in this country as the enemy, and has nothing but sneers and references to their incapacity for the men why try to give employment and invest their money in industrial enterprises in this country.

Irish manufacturers may not be as efficient or as up-to-date as their rivals in other countries — rivals with millions of capital and years of organisation built up behind the breakwater of protection. But if the Irish manufacturer gets the same chance in his own country as foreign manufacturers get in theirs he will give just as good an account of himself, and be as efficient as either the labourer or the farmer.

The President called them antique furniture.

We differ with the President in a good many things, and we differ with him in that. No later than yesterday Senator O'Farrell lectured Irish manufacturers because they did not advertise and establish a market for their goods. Would the Senator indicate where the market is to be found? As far as I know there is not a market in the world but is closed against us by tariffs, except our neighbour, and there we have to compete against rich and well-organised English manufacturers. I do not think the attitude of Labour is strictly fair to Irish manufacturers. Indeed, the attitude of Labour in this issue is somewhat puzzling. In the Dáil the Labour representatives, without definitely committing themselves to the policy of protection, speak as if they believed in it, but here the Labour representatives, while not proclaiming themselves doctrinaire free traders, speak as if they were in favour of free trade and keep emphasising the fact that tariffs increase the cost of living. I would have thought that increasing the chance of living would be quite as important from the Labour point of view, and I cannot understand intelligent representatives of Labour expressing sentiments in favour of free trade and unrestricted imports. I ask them would they like to apply to Labour the free trade principle of unrestricted competition.

They talk of tariffs increasing the cost of production, but do not the limitation of the hours of labour and the existence of minimum standards of wages all tend to increase the cost of production — not that I object in the least; I approve of them — but is it wise or is it logical to restrict the competition of workmen at home and permit the unfettered competition of foreign workmen in the form of their products? Surely Labour must see that it is unjust and illogical to insist on a trade union rate of wages at home and encourage by free importation, the competing products of cheap foreign labour. I quite admit that this is a very intricate problem, and one that does not admit of easy handling, but in appointing a Commission I think the Government are taking a wise and suitable course and one that should have the approval of all who profess to be vitally interested in the providing of work for the people, and in the welfare of Irish industry.

It was impossible for me to sit still and hear Senator O'Hanlon stating that the Minister for Finance had no mandate from the country for protection. I ask who went out on the hillsides, I ask who were under the bed, if you like, I ask those who, like myself, prefer devolution to revolution, was not the question of Irish industries and their development the point on which we were all united? Was it for one moment suggested that we should have political independence without economic independence? I should like to know which of you would have appeared before a public meeting of your own countrymen and said: "We will carry on the old policy, the British policy, which ruined our industries, depopulated the country and destroyed our manufactures. Look at what we owe to a friendly nation." Look all round. Look at the happy colonies of the Empire. Have they been so careful about England's interest as to forget their own? Why should we put ourselves in a different position? Have they not built up their prosperity by means of protection? Look at the United States, about which we hear so much and which, as is stated rightly, is self-contained. How did they build up their industry? Was it by free trade? Was it not by the most rigid protection?

I only rose with the object of pointing out that the Minister for Finance, as champion of protection, whatever he may have been in the old unregenerate days, ought to be supported. I believe he voices, at any rate, the opinion of the nation. As to what model we are to take, what model does Senator Sir John Keane think? What country in the world would think of adopting the policy he suggests? I do not know. England does not. I have just got a rather interesting number of Hansard which gives some details of the debate on the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. Here is another doctrinaire free trader, Dr. Dalton, in the British House of Commons complaining of the awful degeneracy of England. Just fancy 6,000 distinct articles, including toy magic lanterns, soothing syrup, glass, and so on, being given a tariff! Under this proposal he says that principle is going to be greatly increased. England is gone to the dogs; that is quite clear. We must look to some other model for our fiscal policy. All I can say is, go back to the policy of Arthur Griffith and you will make no mistake.

I shall give one or two specific cases. I was interested in an article in the "Irish Independent" some time ago. The editorial and commercial departments were quite concerned that, notwithstanding the tariff, the importation of boots from England into Ireland had increased by practically fifty per cent. Speaking as an ordinary business man, I should say the explanation of that is too obvious to be disputed. The British boot manufacturer discovered he was up against a tariff of five or six shillings. He consequently depreciated the value and the merit of the pair of boots to the tune of the tariff and ostensibly sent in the same boot at the old price, with the result that the Irish purchaser had to get three pairs of boots where previously two had satisfied him. Hence the fifty per cent. importation of British manufactured boots into Ireland.

I am old enough to have watched with interest and deep pride the development of a few firms in Dublin, where I have spent most of my life. I remember here, as a young business man, forty-five years ago, that there was scarcely an Irish biscuit to be obtained in Dublin or any other part of Ireland.

The firm of Jacobs, under a policy of free trade, because they were business men, not blatherskite politicians, and because they minded their business, built up a business here and beat their English and Scotch rivals out of the field. Not only that, but they pursued them into their own country and beat them there. I say what Jacobs has accomplished, every other firm in Ireland can, with proper application and organisation, equally accomplish.

Take the case of Cantrell and Cochrane's mineral waters. There is not a port of the world that a British trading ship goes into that you could not find a bottle of C. and C., and, if you like, a drop of Irish to throw into it. Take Guinness and Company, which is, I suppose, an unrivalled and most outstanding instance in the commercial life of this country or Great Britain. They started thirty years ago with a nominal capital of £6,000,000. To-day, gauged through the Stock Exchange, that is equivalent to about £65,000,000. They have developed a wonderful trade at home. They have gone into England and beaten brewers there under conditions of perfect equality and under a system of free trade, where ability, organisation and genius have a fair field and there is no favour. They put the article on the market on its merits and they stand or fall by it, and under a system of free trade they have developed and gone forward. I maintain that any organisation or industry that claims for itself a subsidy is nothing but a failure and a tax on the nation. Consequently it is my intention to vote in favour of free trade, ample scope, a fair field and no favour, where justice, fair play and merit will get their reward.

To my mind the necessity for this Commission is quite plain to everyone when we have such a difference of opinion in our own Assembly. It is very necessary that we should have a Commission set up such as the Minister suggests in this Bill. Let us take the farming industry, which we all admit is one of the principal industries of our country. The farmers have no general policy of protection or free trade. It is very amusing to see the extraordinary difference of opinion that you have amongst the farming community on this question all over the country. You have one section of farmers in one county asking for protection perhaps, and in the next county you have another section asking for free trade. Is it any wonder that the Government is puzzled? Senator O'Hanlon states that the Minister has no mandate for protection. I would ask Senator O'Hanlon has the Minister any mandate for free trade? I say he has not. I think it is the proper thing and the wise thing for the Government to set up a Commission and thoroughly investigate the matter so as to be in a position to bring forward a proper policy when they know exactly how they stand. Senator Fanning has made a charge that I have no hesitation in saying is an unfounded charge, against an industry — that is, the boot industry. I happen to have some little knowledge of the boot industry in my own county, and I say without hesitation that the boots manufactured in these factories will compare favourably with any foreign-manufactured boots in the open market.

On a point of explanation, I merely referred to the fact that according to the Government statistics published — I rely upon these figures—notwithstanding the tariff the import of boots has increased by practically 50 per cent. I made no charge or accusation against any Irish manufacturer. I was discussing the principle.

No doubt, we are not in a position to compete with the shoddy material that comes across the water. I do not think it is to the advantage of this country——

CATHAOIRLEACH

We will come to that.

We want to establish a better article and Senator Fleming stated very distinctly that one would require to buy three pairs of boots where two pairs did in the past. I hold quite the contrary — that one pair of Irish manufactured boots will wear more than three pairs of the material we are getting across the water.

Where are they made?

In County Monaghan. For the information of my Labour friends I may say that by this little industry we have stemmed the tide of emigration from this county. We have 100 hands employed in these factories. The youth of the country had nothing facing them only to emigrate until these factories were established. I would ask our Labour friends to go down there and see the conditions. They are wonderful. Houses are built for the workmen, and they are well cared for and properly paid. I think it will be an eye-opener for our Labour friends to see the conditions there. We have three industries established in that county, and I say without fear of contradiction that were it not for these industries we would have 300 more emigrants gone out of our county. I appeal to the Seanad to pass the Bill and to give the Government an opportunity thoroughly to investigate the whole matter. Then we will know where we stand, and whether free trade or protection is the proper policy for the country. I unhesitatingly support the Bill.

There has been a very general discussion and some of it has been some little distance away from the Bill, but perhaps that was inevitable. I will not try to follow even the speakers who led against the Bill, or those who spoke most in favour of it. I am not sure that Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Fanning will not be right in voting against the Bill. Certainly if the Government were not prepared to impose any tariff, no matter what case might be made for it, it would not have put forward this Bill and if there is any Senator who thinks that no case can be made for a tariff, that we should stand by the policy of free trade in every instance, then I do not think that there is a good deal to be said for that Senator voting against the Bill. There is, however, one argument against even such a Senator voting against the Bill, and that argument was made by Senator Douglas.

If this Bill is passed tariffs will not be imposed without proper investigation. Tariffs will not be imposed until those who desire them have made a case and until those who object to them have had an opportunity of being heard in opposition. It may be, therefore, that in certain instances tariffs will not be imposed which, perhaps, might, as a result of pressure or as a result of agitation, have been imposed if this Bill were not passed, because without the machinery which this Bill provides it is extremely difficult for any Government to get at the full facts of the case. It is difficult to avoid mistakes. You cannot, unless you are prepared to take some drastic action one way or the other, get away from the representations of individual firms or of special interests. If you say that you are prepared to impose a protective tariff on every article that can possibly be produced in this country, the way is clear. The present Government is not prepared to take that view or to adopt that line because, while an article might be produced here, it might be said that it would never be produced on a really satisfactory or economic basis. If we want articles produced economically they must be produced on a reasonably large scale.

If the home market does not admit of an article being produced on a reasonably large scale there is certainly a very strong case against giving protection to that article. Then in regard, say, to the industries which require very large supplies of cheap coal, there would be, generally speaking, a good case against a tariff in favour of such industries here. So that we are not prepared to adopt the position of being ready to impose tariffs on any article that has been or can be produced here. Neither are we prepared to adopt what has been called the doctrinaire free trade position, to take up the point of view of Senator Fanning, or perhaps the point of view of Senator Sir John Keane, although he was hardly so definite as Senator Fanning. We are not prepared to say that we will leave the matter of industrial progress entirely to private enterprise. We know that goods pay for goods, but that basis of exchange may go on and the country may be getting poorer, with its population shrinking all the time. We cannot have for any great period an adverse trade balance, but we may have a continuous stream of emigration and our population, having regard to the resources of the country, is very much below the population of other countries. Certain industries may be indigenous and may be well-established here, and it would be well to do nothing to handicap such industries. There are industries which are suitable for any country, industries that might flourish in almost any country. We have not got them; a big amount of capital is employed in them elsewhere, and it would be almost impossible in the present state of the world for them to be initiated here.

Transport is cheap and quick, comparatively speaking. We have not the protection that existed in every other country in the old days when transport was slow, when communication was difficult and when mere distance gave protection. Distance no longer gives protection. We are dealing with a state of affairs that has changed very considerably within the last century, and the position is that industries for which this country is as well suited as the countries in which they flourish cannot be started here without protection. You could not expect people to lose money year after year while they were establishing connections, training hands, and generally enabling the industries to take root. Because we know and believe that, we are taking certain steps in the matter of protection. We do not want to go too far and we do not want to go too fast, but we are prepared, if a case is made, to protect certain industries. But we know that it would be very easy for us to go too far and too fast. We are firmly convinced that a general tariff, which some people want, a tariff that would apply to everything that had been or could be manufactured here, would be economically disastrous to the country, because it would condemn us to uneconomic and inefficient methods in regard to certain industries. There are industries which cannot be efficiently and economically carried on here. and as far as we are concerned we stand for no protection for these industries; we stand for importing our requirements of their products. We take what we consider is a middle, a sane and a reasonable position. We feel the need for the type of investigation which this Bill will enable us to have carried out. We are not proposing to set up a Commission that will discuss general principles; we are not proposing to have a repetition of the inquiries which the Fiscal Commission carried out. We are setting up a body which will deal with individual cases and individual applications. It is only by restricting the scope of the Commission that we can get the work well done. If we allow the Commission to roam over the whole field of economic theories we could never get anything from them.

Senators have found fault with the details of the Bill in various respects. I believe that most of their objections are not well founded. The position at the moment is that we have already before us applications for tariffs from many industries. They are in the various Departments. Reference has been made to my statement about fifteen months ago on the introduction of last year's Budget. One of the main objects of that statement of policy on behalf of the Government was to warn off many of the manufacturers. It was not to buy off any opposition in the Dáil. We did not get any support in the Dáil by my making that statement. It was not a pledge given in consideration of anything, of any acquiescence on anybody's part with such protection as we were imposing. It was because we felt that we were being rushed, or that we were in danger of being rushed. It is an absolute fact that every item that was protected led to a dozen applications for protection for other items. It raised the hopes of people who had no hopes before. Many of the applications were perfectly sound and genuine, but I should say that undoubtedly some of them arose out of cupidity, which was excited by the advantages which other people got. We desired to call a halt to enable the country to take stock, to let opinion develop in the matter of protection and we have given it an opportunity of developing by bringing the results of protection home, both in their favourable and unfavourable aspects, to the people by the tariffs which we have imposed. Because that statement of policy had been made we did not impose fresh protective tariffs on manufactured goods in the last Budget.

It has been represented to us that there is economic danger to the country in refusing to consider the case of any other industry until after the general election. It has been pointed out to us that the cataclysm of the European War has altered the whole course of trade, has altered the prospects of many industries, that there were industries that were going on very well before the war which might have gone on and developed but which now find themselves deprived of their market and facing entirely new conditions, find themselves obliged to compete with industries which, owing to certain circumstances connected with the war, had opportunities of combining, of putting in enormous quantities of modern plant and otherwise putting themselves in a position to produce more efficiently than they were able to do before the war, so that the same industries here which had not perhaps the same opportunities were seriously disadvantaged. It is an undoubted fact that the whole result of the war, and of the aftermaths of the war, have been such as to cause a very serious shock to many industries which were efficiently conducted and which were, at any rate, moderately prosperous before the war.

We are being asked if we are going to allow some of these industries to go out of existence, although they might be saved at a very small cost to the community, although they have good prospects here. Our view is that we should not take up the position of saying: "They can disappear or not; we do not care. We are not going to do any more for them until after the general election." The conclusion we came to, having regard to those industries, and for other reasons I have already stated, was that we ought at once to proceed with the setting up of a Commission such as is provided for in this Bill, which would enable us to see what were the real facts with regard to these industries and what the relief of the industries would cost the community. I accept the fact fully that, generally speaking, protection throws a burden on the community. You may in a particular industry impose protection without any additional charge to the community, but, generally speaking, there must be a charge on the community, and in most of the industries that we have already protected I think there has been some charge to the community.

As a result of the machinery in the Bill we will have an opportunity of getting a reasonably accurate view as to what will be the effect of tariffs in all these cases. I believe the public will be educated as a result of these inquiries. There will not be a discussion of theories or general principles but a good deal will be learned by seeing the case that can be made for protection in any particular and the case that can be made against it. I think if that is repeated several times in the case of a number of industries and opportunities given to the public of reading the reports and the evidence they will get a much clearer view of what are probably the merits of the controversy than they could get through discussion of general principles.

I think most people can only learn from the concrete; they can deal only with the concrete. The great mass of the people cannot grasp economic theory and can never get anywhere so long as they are kept to economic theory. We had that view in mind when we described our first steps in protection as experimental. We believed that the people would learn as the result of the actual operation of protection what they never could learn by any amount of argument or discussion. It is said that the scope of this Commission should be wider. There may be in a few years a case for making the scope of the Commission wider. But there is work to hand. We are going to impose upon the Commission the task of doing that work of investigating the applications made by various industries for protection. We do not ask them to examine the effect of the existing tariffs, because we believe it is too early to do so. In a year or two after a tariff is imposed, you cannot know what the effects are. Senator Fanning referred to certain reports and figures in the case of boots. I believe nothing can be learned from these figures because the time is too short. One often finds in the import lists for one half-year twice the imports of the corresponding half-year. We must take the figures over a considerable period before any deductions can be made.

With regard to the tariffs imposed in the last few years it is too early to judge. Some of them are beginning to have effect. It would be unfair and misleading to examine the state of those industries now and try and deduce anything from the facts discovered. Three or four years must elapse before we can come to any reasonable conclusion as to the effect of the existing tariffs. That is why we do not propose to examine into the existing tariffs. We want to put ourselves in the position that there will be no imposition of tariffs simply because some manufacturer or group of manufacturers come along and make the case in private to Ministers which may not be, and cannot be expected to be, a full case, because the manufacturer wants the tariff for his own interest. He may want it for the general interest, but in any case he cannot be expected to put much forward that would be an argument against the tariff.

I have no hesitation in saying that, in regard to certain of the tariffs that we did impose, we had not all the facts before us, and there were some of them that we might have imposed in a somewhat different form if we had all the facts. We want to put ourselves in the position of having all the facts. We want also to be in a position, in regard to those industries that allege urgency, of getting all the facts and of seeing if they are on the point of collapse for some reason which would make it fair for us to ask for assistance for them. I think Senators will recognise that there may well be industries which are not simply dying because they must die, because there is no future before them, or because of inefficiency. There may be industries dying because of circumstances for which nobody can be blamed, and which may be revived, as the blanket industry was revived. That was revived without any cost to the public. It was one of the cases in which there was no increase of price, where a tariff had been fully effective in restoring the prosperity of the industry. I do not think I need go into other points of detail until we reach the Committee Stage of the Bill.

As Senator Dowdall has dealt with me in a somewhat cruel manner and suggested that my advocacy of the case was enough to kill it, I wish to correct one mistake he made. He quoted Holland as a protective country, whereas it is not. I have seen the Dutch tariffs, which are all on a flat rate of eight per cent. They really are not protective but revenue duties. With regard to professors and their bearing on the European situation, I could not understand what the Senator meant. His statements reminded me of my young days when I read what are known as nonsense rhymes. His references to professors, rates of exchange, British exports, and so forth, seem to me to be a jumble of economic phrases. I would suggest that in regard to countries which have got a depreciated currency, you generally find that they are protective countries, and that those which have got back to a sound currency are free trade countries. When France was in difficulties over her depreciated currency, she had to remove the protective duty on wheat. Now, with regard to the Bill, I hope that it will not be allowed to pass, as I submit it is quite unnecessary. I hope that the Government will not suggest that I am dealing with it on a partisan basis. I see no advantage in it, except that it is, perhaps, proposed merely for electioneering purposes, and is intended for the next Budget, which will be the last Budget to be brought in by the present Government. Piecing everything together and knowing what is going on behind the stage — I should say, rather, not knowing, but imagining what is going on — I regard this Bill as a set-piece to be staged as an electioneering budget in which tariffs will be judiciously administered in the hope of future favours. Whether right or wrong, I think that that is the true construction to put on the whole matter, as otherwise it is illogical. Having a Commission on general principles, they will probably reject its findings, introduce a lot of duties of their own without any recommendation, and then, at the last moment they will bring in their Budget. Taking the view that this Bill is merely a question of tactics, I think that the Government should be grateful to us for saving them from that position by defeating the Bill.

I think I am entitled to say a word in reply to Senator Sir John Keane.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Then where is it to end? Will he have a word in reply to you? He made his speech, you put a certain construction on it, you criticised him quite fairly, and he criticised you. I think we better leave it at that.

Then I will only utter one sentence. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Question:—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 9.

Tá.

  • Thomas W. Bennett.
  • William Barrington.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • J. C. Counihan.
  • Countess of Desart.
  • James Douglas.
  • J. C. Dowdall.
  • Sir Nugent Everard.
  • Oliver Gogarty.
  • Sir Henry Greer.
  • H. S. Guinness.
  • A. Jackson.
  • Right Hon. A. Jameson.
  • P. W. Kenny.
  • F. MacGuinness.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • Sir Bryan Mahon.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • Stephen O'Mara.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • J.J. Parkinson.
  • T. Toal.

Níl.

  • William Cummins.
  • James Dillon.
  • M. Fanning.
  • T. Farren.
  • T. Foran.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • J.T. O'Farrell.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
Question declared carried.

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am coming to that. I want to call the attention of the House to the Agenda. With the exception of the Committee Stage of the Betting Bill, I do not think that the other matters are likely to take any time, as they are practically formal. It is plain, I think, that the House would not agree to take the Committee Stage of the Tariff Bill to-morrow, and I do not think that it would be reasonable that the House should be asked to do so. That would involve the necessity of meeting next week. If an alteration is made in the Bill it will have to go back to the Dáil, which will not meet until the 20th inst. If the Dáil disagrees with anything which we put into the Bill, it would have to come back again here, so that we must meet before the 20th. Consequently we will have to meet next week. We might dispose now of the non-contentious matters on the Agenda and take the Betting Bill and the Tariff Bill in Committee next week.

I have to be in England next week, and though there are a great many amendments in my name to the Betting Bill they are mostly consequential and would not take very long.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Then the only solution would be to meet to-morrow to take the Betting Bill. We would meet at 11 o'clock to-morrow, take the Betting Bill, and then meet on Wednesday next to dispose of the Committee Stage of the Tariff Commission Bill.

The Seanad went into Committee.

Top
Share