Senators will see on the Order Paper a series of amendments to this Bill tabled in the name of Senator Sir John Keane, but at the time he sent these amendments he also sent, by the same post, a number of other amendments. The set of amendments on the Order Paper was delivered yesterday morning, but the remainder, for some reason or other, was not delivered until late in the evening. Consequently, they do not appear on the Order Paper, but the Clerk has printed them all on a separate sheet, and it will be better for Senators, when dealing with the amendments, to take them from that sheet.
TARIFF COMMISSION BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE.
The Seanad went into Committee.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I desire to give notice that I shall raise, on the motion for the adjournment, the question of the delay in the delivery of letters. I am not referring to this specific case, as there are other cases which I should like to mention.
SECTION I.
(1) As soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act the Minister for Finance shall establish a Commission (in this Act referred to as "the Commission") which shall be styled "the Tariff Commission" and shall consist of three members of whom one, who shall be chairman, shall be nominated by the Minister for Finance, one shall be nominated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and one shall be nominated by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture.
(2) Nominations of members of the Tariff Commission shall be made from time to time as occasion requires, and every member shall, unless he previously dies or resigns, retain his membership for two years from the date of his nomination, but shall be eligible for renomination.
The following amendments stood in the name of Sir John Keane:—
1. Section 1, sub-section (1). To delete all after the word "Commission" in line 19 down to the end of the sub-section.
2. Section 1, sub-section (1). To insert after the sub-section a new sub-section (2) as follows:—
"(2) The Commission shall consist of three members, who shall be nominated by the Executive Council, of which not more than one may be a civil servant."
I will take both of these amendments together, and my object in moving them is to give the Tariff Commission something wider than a mere departmental basis. My view is that this matter is one of extreme gravity. The recommendations of the Commission may have very far-reaching consequences, so that the tribunal should be something much bigger and more representative than consisting merely of nominees of various Departments. My object is to secure that the big aspect of the question shall be considered and that the Commission shall be appointed, not merely as a sort of compromise between various departmental points of view, but on the grounds of big national policy. In my opinion, the appointment should be made by the Executive Council and not merely on the nomination of individual Ministers.
There is one very strong argument against the proposal, and that is found in the rather peculiar feature of our Constitution, which provides that we are to have certain Ministers who are not members of the Executive Council. The Minister for Agriculture is one of those who are not members of the Executive Council, and it was felt that in the setting up of this tribunal he ought to be specifically consulted and have a specific voice. In the past we have had, in spite of the provisions of the Constitution, in preparing budgets and in deciding tariff proposals, actually in practice to treat the Minister for Agriculture as if he were a member of the Executive Council and bring him into consultation. We did that because we all belong to one political party, but if we did not all belong to one political party, it might have been difficult to bring in a Minister who was not a member of the Executive Council, who did not share their responsibilities, and who was not obliged to stand or fall with them. In certain circumstances, if the Commission were appointed by the Executive Council, it might happen that the views of the Minister for Agriculture would not have the weight we think that they ought to have. It is for that reason that it was decided that the committee should be constituted as suggested in the Bill. As a matter of fact, all tariff proposals in the past have been examined by a committee consisting of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for Finance. I would suggest that that is really the most satisfactory way to deal with the question in all the circumstances.
Amendment No. 1 put and negatived.
I shall bring in an amendment on the Report Stage which will ensure that not more than one member of the Commission is a civil servant. I think that follows on the defeat of these two amendments.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Your second amendment has not been put yet.
I think it is involved in the first one.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think so. Your first amendment does not deal with the membership of the Commission. This proposes to limit the Commission to members nominated by the Executive Council. Do you consider that that is covered by the previous amendment?
I do, but on the Report Stage I should like to bring up an, amendment not altering the powers of nomination, but ensuring that only one member of the Commission may be a civil servant.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If you leave out of your second amendment the words "who shall be nominated by the Executive Council," you can discuss it.
I am in the hands of the House.
I think it is better to have the principle discussed now and not be putting it off.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You may take it, Senator, that the House gives you leave to move your second amendment in the amended form.
I move:—
Section 1, sub-section (1). "To insert after the sub-section a new sub-section (2) as follows:—
"(2) The Commission shall consist of three members, of which not more than one may be a civil servant."
I regard this as a very important amendment, raising the whole question of the personnel of the Commission. This matter was referred to and debated at length in the other House. I consider that a commission wholly composed of civil servants, as the Government has announced, is not a satisfactory one. I ask the House to take the view that civil servants are not by nature constituted and trained to deal with the intricate and involved questions of tariffs, to sift and examine evidence that will be advanced by the various parties seeking tariffs, or to give an opinion as to the consequences and of the invisible items—and the invisible items are the difficult ones—involved in any such recommendation. If only one civil servant was chosen I would not object, but I am of the opinion that some person with a legal training, a retired judge or barrister, who is accustomed to evidence and pleading, should be appointed. I suggest that it might be possible to have an accountant of some eminence on it. I do not wish to see business specially represented, even though such a representative is not actually concerned with the application. I do not wish to see people actually engaged in business, trade or commerce on the Commission. I should like to see someone on it with a judicial training, but I strongly object, and I hope the House will endorse my view, to having the Commission wholly composed of civil servants. Naturally, having regard to their close and intimate relations with the Government, civil servants cannot be immune from the policy of the Government. That is out of the question. It is expecting too much to think that they could take an absolutely detached view from that held by the Government. I hope the House will take that view, and make it impossible for the Government to carry out its present expressed intention, of having the Commission composed entirely of civil servants.
I do not find that in any part of the Bill.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Senator said it was not in the Bill, but that it was the declared policy of the Government.
When introducing the Bill the Minister for Finance expressed that view.
I think there is a great deal of weight in the views that have been expressed by Senator Sir John Keane. I do not know if the Government has made a decision on this issue or not, but I would suggest that it is one that might be very usefully considered. Taking them all round, civil servants are people who discharge their duties in a most conscientious manner, but I am not at all certain that they are the people best qualified to advise us on the protection of industries. I would like to see something on the basis of the American Tariff Commission formed which makes certain recommendations to Congress, and which may or may not be carried into effect. If you are to have civil servants only to advise the country on such very important and intricate proposals you will lack in authority. I think you will find the authority very much enhanced, so far as the Commission is concerned, if you take in some outsiders who would be well-known business men, well-known agriculturists, or well-known lawyers. The Commission should be composed of those who could not be held to have any axe to grind. It is difficult to find people without an axe to grind, but I think we could find them in this country. There are persons whose names occur to me who would be capable of giving disinterested advice. I hope the Government has not made up its mind to confine the Commission to civil servants, estimable as civil servants are. In view of the importance of the matter and of the weight which its recommendations should carry in the country, I think it would be better that the Commission should be more widely representative.
With great respect to the views of those who spoke against the proposals, I hope the Government will stand by the arrangement that has been embodied in the Bill.
CATHAOIRLEACH
There is nothing about this embodied in the Bill yet.
It is proposed to be done by the Executive Council. I think the work of the Commission would be done much more expeditiously by confining it to representatives of the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. I know some industries in the South of Ireland that need to be expeditiously handled, or otherwise the industries concerned will be transferred across the Channel. On the other hand, there are other manufacturers in this country who do not want at any cost a tariff placed on their manufactures which are largely those of an export character, and I believe the Commission, as proposed, will be much better able to handle questions than others brought in from outside.
May I ask the Minister to answer a question which is a matter of doubt generally? Is not this Bill intended as a temporary measure not to last beyond two years? Naturally, it would affect one's opinion about the various sections of the Bill if it is only for a temporary purpose to tide over a period.
CATHAOIRLEACH
On the face of it the Bill is a permanent one.
I should like to know what the views of the Government are. The actual subject of the amendment is not in the Bill, and the proposal of Senator Sir John Keane is merely based on a casual remark which was made by the Minister in the Dáil. There is a great deal to be said on both sides. Civil servants are not usually put on to commissions of this kind. They are appointed as secretaries, but not as members of a commission. I realise that for a commission of this kind, which is to be available for all time, it would be important for the Government to get members who would attend regularly. Sometimes it is difficult to get members to attend a commission. Possibly the Government has something of that kind in their heads when the Minister suggests that civil servants only are to serve on the Commission.
When the Bill was before the Dáil I stated that the present intention of the Government was to appoint three civil servants. I also said that we did not bind ourselves to appointing three civil servants. Our object is to get the best possible body to do the work, and because we wish to do that, I resist Senator Sir John Keane's amendment. I prefer that we should not be tied as to personnel, but should be free to get the best personnel available. We have found it difficult to get suitable people outside for various commissions.
For instance, there were advisory committees mentioned in the Seanad a week or two ago, and in filling up these bodies we experienced great difficulty. It would still be more difficult to get outsiders in the Tariff Commission because there are a great number of people interested and prejudiced one way or the other. We do not want anyone in the nature of a partisan. If we had anyone of that nature grave doubts would be expressed even on matters of fact. The Committee will not only be asked to deal with matters of fact as set out in the Schedule, but with certain aspects of policy. Even on matters of fact the findings of the Commission would be regarded with suspicion if people, interested one way or the other, were appointed on it. That restricts outsiders who would be available otherwise.
A merchant dealing with goods manufactured in Great Britain might be impartial and a good man, but his work would be attacked and criticised, and people would say that he had an interest in preventing protection. On the other hand, anyone interested in manufacture might be an impartial man, but his membership would give rise to suspicion and would be questioned. A person like a retired judge might not be willing to give the time necessary, because this will need a great deal of time and will last over a considerable period. The desire of the Government is the same. Members should act on the Commission for a considerable time so that we will not have chopping and changing, and evidence looked at from one point of view to-day and another to-morrow. We want a body which will treat a variety of applications on a uniform basis, and from the same point of view. Certain people who would be desirable in themselves, who are impartial and independent and who might be looked upon by the public as impartial and independent, might not be willing to give the time. Although there are citizens willing to give public service, yet cases have frequently arisen when it is found difficult to get suitable people to undertake arduous service such as this would be.
We believe we can get very good civil servants for the work, men who are of an independent turn of mind, who would be impartial, who are not interested, and who can be said not to be interested. There are always two points of view about the relationship of civil servants to the Government. Some people accuse us of being merely the mouthpieces of the civil servants. On the other hand, some people say they are entirely subservient and have no independence at all. I do not agree with either point of view, and I believe we can get a body of civil servants who can deal impartially with the matter. On the other hand, if some person were highly recommended to us who was not a civil servant, we are not committed to three civil servants and we should consider the name of such a person most carefully, being quite willing to appoint him if we found somebody willing and in every way suitable. I think it is better to leave the matter open. The intention of the Government arises from the circumstances I stated. There would be practical difficulties in choosing the personnel if an amendment were passed saying there should be only one civil servant. As I have already pointed out, the constitutional position creates difficulties. There are people who are not members of the Executive Council, and you cannot always rely on having the give and take you might have between members of the Executive Council. I might very strongly desire to have as a civil servant, somebody on whom I rely very greatly. On the other hand, the Minister for Agriculture might have someone in his Department whom he regarded as the ideal person to see that the agricultural point of view is kept in mind, and if only one civil servant was appointed, difficulties might arise. As we are not both members of the Executive Council it might be difficult to reach accommodation. If we were both members we could leave it to the majority of the council to decide. That is a minor difficulty but a practical one involved in the course suggested by Senator Sir John Keane.
In reply to what Senator Sir Nugent Everard said, this is not a temporary measure, but if it had not been urged on us that there were certain obligations that must and ought to be considered and, if necessary, dealt with within a reasonable period, we probably would not have introduced this Bill at the present stage. If it had not been put to us very strongly that there were industries which would disappear if nothing were done, until after the General Election, and that at any rate their cases should be considered, we should not have introduced this Bill, but would have let the whole matter stand. It is out of my explanation of that side of the case that members' misapprehensions, with regard to the temporary nature of the proposal, arose.
The Minister's statement rather inclines me to the belief that he has a leaning towards the appointment of civil servants.
Yes.
His remarks in regard to prejudices might, in a way, be construed to apply to civil servants as well as to those outside the ranks of the Civil Service. Senator Sir John Keane rightly remarked that civil servants, who are daily in touch with the Government Party, must be subject to the infiltration of ideas, tendencies and leanings of the Governmental Party, and being human, they must undoubtedly be influenced by that infiltration. As regards the question of getting men outside the ranks of the Civil Service to give time and attention to the matters which come before the Commission, it should be noted that those representatives who serve on the various Commissions at present are unpaid, and civil servants who take up this work will be paid. If persons outside the ranks of the Civil Service were appointed to the Tariff Commission and were paid, undoubtedly, men could be got to act on the Commission.
They would be civil servants then.
If men outside the ranks of the Civil Service were appointed, and were paid they would undoubtedly act. Take, for instance, the Railway Tribunal. The members of that body are not civil servants, but they are paid. They do their work, and there are no complaints about it. The very same thing could apply in the case of the Tariff Commission and outsiders should not be excluded on the ground of the difficulty of getting proper men. It should not be necessary to confine the Commission to civil servants. The Minister has shown a very definite tendency in that respect and I do not see why we should be reduced to such a state of bureaucracy where civil servants would determine the policy of the State. Their duty should be confined to carrying on administration. I strongly support Senator Sir John Keane's amendment.
I hope the Seanad will not pass this amendment. If the Seanad were prepared to press for the appointment of a paid independent Commission, or even of a paid independent chairman, I would be prepared to support it, but no amendment of that kind has come forward, and I take it, at present, at any rate, the Government are not prepared themselves to undertake the necessary expenditure. It seems to me that what is required is the maximum of independence for the Commission. It does not follow that because a trader or manufacturer or a man having business interests in England is appointed, he would act other than scrupulously and impartially, but it seems to me certain if he does act that his motives will be impugned and that he will find it impossible to remain on the Commission, not because he is doing anything wrong, but because those associated with him in business are being charged with influencing him wrongly. That is almost inevitable, and for that reason, unless you are prepared to get persons who will be paid and independent and who will be for all practical purposes civil servants, I would frankly say that a Commission of civil servants should be appointed rather than that the Dáil and Seanad should press the Government to look for and get other persons.
Theoretically, it would be a very good thing to get a competent accountant, as mentioned by Senator Sir John Keane, but practically, unless you are prepared to pay that competent accountant something like he is earning at the present moment—and that is a very large sum, as I happen to know, more, perhaps, than the House would be prepared to sanction—then you have to take an accountant from a firm, which, if it is not actually doing the business, is, potentially, at any rate, liable to undertake accountancy business for a class of manufacturer or trader who will be affected by tariffs. Then it will promptly be suggested that these accountants are acting in the interests of certain clients of theirs, or of certain prospective clients. I do not want for a moment to suggest that I believe in the truth of such an allegation. What I do suggest is that the appointment of such persons would lead to a weakening of the position of the Commission from this kind of suggestion, not that I think it would affect the findings, but it would affect the Commission, and that, I believe, would be most unfortunate. For that reason, I believe that until it is at work for some time and until public opinion is prepared to pay an independent person, as in the United States, such person to act as chairman—to act, practically, as the Tariff Commission— I believe civil servants would be the best for the purpose, taking the matter as a whole. I am certainly against this amendment, because I would prefer to see a majority of civil servants dealing with a matter of this kind.
Senator Douglas has said that he doubts if the Government is in a position to appoint men or to pay them, but he has evidently overlooked the provisions of Section 8, which provides that the expenses of the Commission, including the remuneration of members, shall be paid by the Government. I would like to know from the Minister whether it is the intention to pay these civil servants any remuneration in addition to their ordinary salary.
No, but a person outside the Civil Service, presumably, would have to get some remuneration.
Would a civil servant be paid in addition to his ordinary salary?
No, I do not think so.
I was referring to civil servants acting in another capacity at the same time, of course. You might take one civil servant and put him aside specially for this work.
I frankly admit that I am very much disappointed that this debate does not mark the reality and magnitude of this issue. Here we have been discussing the very important matter of the composition of the Tariff Commission, and it has now come down to a question of compromise and expense. Nobody is more anxious than I am for economy, but we have to look at the unseen. It is the unseen that governs all tariff questions and that dominates the issue. Take, for example, if a tariff of a shilling is imposed on a pair of boots. I do not know how many pairs of boots are worn annually in Ireland, but to put a shilling on each pair of boots worn by the population means a tax of 3,000,000 shillings annually. Enormous issues are involved, and I am disappointed that this discussion should be brought down to some small question of compromise and of the inability to pay or to get people to serve on the Commission. My point is that the magnitude of these tariff issues are being overlooked at present.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 18.
Tá.
- Thomas Westropp Bennett.
- Michael Duffy.
- Sir Thomas Henry Grattan Esmonde.
- Thomas Farren.
- Sir Henry Greer.
- Sir John Keane.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- James MacKean.
- Colonel Maurice Moore.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- Michael F. O'Hanlon.
Níl.
- William Barrington.
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- Samuel L. Brown.
- Mrs. Eileen Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- Countess of Desart.
- James Douglas.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Sir Nugent Talbot Everard.
- Oliver St. John Gogarty.
- Mrs. Alice Stopford Green.
- Henry Seymour Guinness.
- Benjamin Haughton.
- Major-General Sir William Hickie.
- Andrew Jameson.
- John MacLoughlin.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Thomas Toal.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 1 agreed to.
I move:—
Section 2, sub-section (1). After the word "goods" in line 32, to insert the words "including agricultural produce."
This amendment is for the purpose of lucidity, or what I hope may be regarded as lucidity. "Goods" seems to be rather a general description, and might be held not to include agricultural produce. If the Minister assures us that he is advised it does, I will withdraw the amendment, but if there is any doubt about it I would like to have these words included.
I am advised that "goods" includes "agricultural produce."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
Section 2, sub-section (1). After the word "modification" in line 33, to insert the word "abolition."
I do not think that this amendment will be quite so simple. The object of it is to ensure that an applicant may demand the abolition of a duty. The Minister again may say that he is advised that "modification" involves, or may be held to involve, "abolition." If he does I should answer that he might do away with all doubts by the insertion of the word "abolition." I gather from the Minister's gesture that he does not, and so I will proceed to argue the case. The difficulty in this whole matter all along, and the objection that some of us take to the way in which this whole tariff question is being handled, is the absence of any declaration of policy. At the outset, the Government was undoubtedly seeking a policy or it would not have appointed a Commission to inquire. That Commission did not deal with the broad principle, but with specific cases with a view to advising the Government on policy. No policy has emerged and no policy is yet feasible. If any policy was possible and the Government wanted to put it up, a proviso in the Preamble would be required—"Whereas it is desirable to rescue or to protect industries from extinction without undue cost to the consumer." That would, no doubt, be open to criticism, but it would at least show what was in mind. Or I might suggest a Preamble—"Whereas in view of the approaching General Election it is desirable to have power to use tariffs as required, a Commission is hereby set up." That is only expressing in a way a view of policy, not what I say is the policy that the Government has in view.
But we do not like the way in which this exceedingly important matter is allowed to drift on without any declaration of policy. A fundamental question of policy is involved and we want the Government to declare themselves on this point. Is it open to those who are suffering from the duties to come in and say: "We want these duties removed"? The Government might say: "No, we cannot allow that, because we are under a quasi-contractual obligation, and people have sunk capital and undertaken commitments." But suppose it can be shown that these commitments are of a comparatively small kind and can easily be liquidated, still the door is shut absolutely to any abolition of duties, however ineffective, unsuitable and costly they may have been found to be in practice. One thing will occur to us all, I think, the case of bottles. I would like the Government to deal with that and to say what they claim to have done for the bottle industry by the tariff. They have increased the price of bottles by, I believe, 25 per cent. They have fostered the home manufacture of a bottle which is so bad in quality that I believe it will not be used where imported bottles can be obtained, although the imported bottles are dearer. Further, I understand that in addition to the duty they have come to the assistance of the bottle industry under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act.
That is an example, I submit, of the totally mistaken application of this fostering power, and the sooner it is abolished the better. The effect of the abolition would be to revise and stimulate our export bottling trade, because it is obvious that we are not exporting bottles now. The bottle, I am informed, that the exporters use must be of a kind and quality that must be imported, although it is 25 per cent dearer. As time goes on the trade interests involved will feel the pressure of those duties more and more. Is it reasonable then to say, as implied in the Bill, that in the interests of the consumer, of the majority, and I put it even on as low a ground as in the interests of electioneering tactics, that a large majority of consumers should have not the power to come along and ask that certain duties should be revised or, if necessary, abolished?
The effect of this debate, I hope, will be to get from the Government some declaration of policy with regard to the tariff question. The Bill at present has for its object the setting up of a body to investigate and make a report. Having got a report, what is the Government going to do with it? If we are to judge from the experience of other countries, it is almost impossible to keep any of those tariff questions out of politics. They have got into politics on every occasion that they have turned up. The big financial interests dominate politics in tariff matters. I am not going to pursue that further, but you cannot shut your eyes to the fact that the powerful financial interests dominate in these matters. We would like to know what is the Government's policy on this tariff question generally? It should have been announced long before these duties were introduced at all, and should not be still as an entirely undecided matter.
I do not agree with the Senator that we should ask the Government, at this moment, for a declaration of policy on such a difficult question as to whether we ought to have free trade or protection. I do not suppose that the Government has made up its mind on the question as, I am perfectly certain, the country has not. If I may say so, I think the Government is pursuing the wise and obviously natural course, of waiting until the country makes up its mind as to what it really wants to do. But, having said so much, I think, Senator Sir John Keane's amendment is a good one, and I am going to vote for it if it goes to a division, and for this simple reason: It does not tie the hands of the Minister or compel him to do anything he does not want to do, but it gives the Minister additional scope in the exercise of his administrative capacity. If he chooses to abolish a duty he can refer the abolition of that duty to the Tariff Commission, and he can have their advice. He is not bound to do so; it is perfectly permissive.
I should, also, like to support the amendment. I do so, because we all know there may be danger, not an immediate danger, but a danger in the course of time, of one specific manufacturer predominating through creating a trust in a particular interest in the country or in a particular trade. There may be a number of smaller people engaged in the trade who feel that the tariffs are aiding that particular man in the furtherance of his designs to the injury of the community. A combination of these people might be got together to apply for the abolition of a duty which is so offensive to them. As things stand, I can visualise a number of men not wanting to appeal collectively for modification, but whom the larger question of total abolition might bring together, and, I think, in that way, we might have an effective safeguard or medium of opening up a question which might be against the interests of the community as a whole. From that point of view, I think the amendment should be supported.
If this amendment is in order, surely sub-section (1) of Section 2 would have to be altered. The sub-section to admit such application reads:—
"Whenever an application is made to the Minister for Finance by any persons substantially representative of the persons engaged or proposing to engage in the production in Saorstát Eireann of goods of any particular class or description."
It is not likely that people who are engaged at present or people who are proposing to engage in such industries would apply for the abolition of any privileges those particular industries might have. I presume that abolition in the ordinary sense would mean depriving an industry of any tariff it has already.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by Senator Sir John Keane, but I would like to ask whether or not there is power under the section that it is proposed to amend, to carry out in its present form what the Senator has in mind. The section says "imposition, modification or renewal." I think each tax has to be renewed in the Budget each year.
No. It is usual to have one direct tax and one indirect tax, which are renewable annually. The others are permanent taxes until repealed.
I would suggest to the Minister that he should accept this amendment because it gives him additional powers. It is quite conceivable that a duty that is put on in favour of some particular trade may in the end do harm, and surely one of the best ways of bringing that to the mind of the Minister is to have it referred to this Commission? It would be impossible, as the section now stands, to have the question of the abolition of the duty which is on any imported goods at present, and which may be doing harm, sent to the Commission. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to consider this amendment and accept it on these grounds. It does not bind him in any way.
The feverish anxiety of Senator Sir John Keane, lest by any chance industries might be established, is a very interesting study in psychology. The Minister, in dealing with his Finance Bill last year, said that the duties which he was then imposing were experimental, and that it would be only fair to those who relied on these duties and who invested their money in industries that they should get a fair and exhaustive trial. I think the Minister mentioned a period of something in the neighbourhood of ten years as the period of trial for the experiment. If this word "abolition" is put into the section it will be a pointer to the Commission, and a menace to those who have invested or who have an intention of investing their money in this country on the faith of those duties being given a fair trial. Any man who has any regard for his capital will take very good care that he will not invest it in these industries if the word "abolition" is put in. We got a dissertation on the price and quality of the bottles produced here. I know a gentleman, the representative of a cross-Channel bottle firm, and he tells me his firm has been hard hit and he has been hard hit because his firm, with a capital of over one million pounds, cannot compete with the bottles made here in Ireland. I will give Senator Sir John Keane full particulars with regard to this. I do not like to mention names in a public debate of this sort.
With regard to the point made by Senator Bennett about the danger of trusts, I think the Senator need not worry his mind in the matter of the possible harm that trusts may do to industries in Ireland. Even if there were trusts springing up in due course, it seems to be only the natural modern development such as has taken place in England and America. It is a natural development that those who have vast accumulations of capital should come together to preserve their interests. I believe there is a trust in the glass trade in England. This is what we are competing with, and lest we are to have any chance of competing with it, the word "abolition" is to be introduced into this section. After all, I have myself seen in this country, and in parts of England, including London, the old Irish glass, the Waterford glass, offered for sale at very fancy prices. Is it outside the bounds of possibility that the skill of our craftsmen may be revived, at a relatively small cost, and that such an industry may be introduced into this country again? Senator Sir John Keane seems to be terribly afraid it will.
The anxiety of those who are anxious for an extension of tariffs to see that no case can possibly be made for the abolition of any tariff presents us also with an interesting study in psychology. Is it to be argued that if there is a tariff in respect of a certain commodity, and if those engaged in the production of that commodity combine to form a trust and to fleece the public, and if they do all these things that a trust sometimes does, that there should not be anybody allowed to make a case for abolition before the Commission? That is all that this amendment asks for.
The tariff is subject to the Minister for Finance every year without any report from the Commission.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think that is quite accurate, Senator. Of course the Minister for Finance can ask the Dáil in each new Budget to repeal a particular duty. He could do that, of course. What is suggested is that he would have the advantage of the advice of the Commission on that matter, just in the same way as on the question of imposing a tariff.
The Minister practically gave a pledge, when introducing these taxes, that in subsequent finance measures he would give an exhaustive trial to the tariffs that he would bring in. Now it is suggested to have the word "abolition" put into this Bill. That, I say, is a pointer to the members of the Commission——
CATHAOIRLEACH
How long a period do you say is meant by "exhaustive trial"?
The Minister himself said ten years.
There is nothing in this amendment to compel the Minister. It is only "if he so thinks fit."
I speak on this amendment from an entirely opposite side to that of Senator Sir John Keane. I am certainly a protectionist and yet I see the justice of this amendment. It seems to me that there can be no reason why arguments should not be heard on both sides, and if any tariff was found out to be bad that certain people should not be in a position to come forward and point out to the Commission that that tariff was bad. A person may fail in showing that these tariffs are wrong, but I hold that it is quite proper that the other side should be heard on each occasion. People who object to a tariff on the ground that it is bad for the public should be given an opportunity to come up and try to prove it. I really fail to understand why both sides should not be heard on this matter and why the word "abolition" should not be put in as well as "modification." Of course you can modify a thing down to infinity. You can bring a tax down almost to a point that is practically infinitesimal.
I hope the Minister will consider whether he can accept the principle at any rate of the amendment. I know there is some difficulty in putting in the word exactly where it is proposed by Senator Sir John Keane. It seems to me that it is not quite the same class of person who ought to be given power—it is not quite the same class of person who would apply to the Minister and for whom it is desirable the Minister would have power to put the question before this Commission. I think it would be better if the Seanad would agree to the principle to insert another sub-section which would provide that where the Minister was satisfied that there were substantial interests in the country who were affected by the tariff, that they should be heard against a tariff.
I am in favour of some such provision being put in, but I do recognise that when you put on a tariff you cannot hastily take it off without a certain amount of breach of faith, and without doing a considerable amount of damage. It is because of that fact that some of us are anxious that there should be very great care taken before tariffs are imposed. It is one of the difficulties that one cannot immediately undo tariffs that have been put into operation. It would be a mistake, though he may not exercise it immediately, and I do not think he can exercise it immediately, for the Minister not to take to himself powers to put a proposal of that kind before the members of the Tariff Commission if he thought fit.
I prefer the amendment proposed by Senator Sir John Keane to the suggestion made by Senator Douglas. I think Senator Keane's amendment is logical. I have no real objection to it. When the Bill was originally drafted the word "revocation" was in. It read "for the imposition, modification, revocation or renewal." The reason why the word "revocation" was taken out was that it was feared it would be looked upon, as Senator Dowdall has said, as a pointer, that it would cause alarm and a certain amount of uneasiness amongst manufacturers and people engaging in the industries already protected. It was thought, moreover, as Senator Moore has said, that the word "modification" could be used to get practically the same sort of inquiry as "abolition" or "revocation." If it were proposed to modify the tax to a very small tax, then it would be practically equivalent to abolition.
While what Senator Keane has proposed would do very little harm—I have no very great feeling about it, although I did strike an equivalent word out of the Bill when it came to me in draft—if it were to be suggested that persons other than those engaged in the industry could cause an inquiry to be made, the results would be extremely serious, and in such circumstances, I believe, it would not be desirable. I know that at present, simply because our tariffs are experimental, we are not getting the full value out of them. People are afraid to invest money; they are afraid that in a year or two those particular tariffs will be abolished just after they have installed necessary plant, and that they will sustain a loss.
It is extremely desirable where a tariff is imposed that it should be given a very considerable period of trial. I have mentioned in the Dáil a period of from seven to ten years. Since we placed a tariff on goods two or three new factories have been erected. In the case of other factories extensions have been made, new machinery has been installed. The erection of further new factories is in contemplation. Within the last month I have heard of one or two proposed new factories. If an inquiry was instituted before the Tariff Commission for the abolition of a duty the result would be rather serious. For example, there would be no further investments; no further extensions would take place while that inquiry was pending, and unless the report of the Committee were of an extremely definite character, no developments in the way of starting or extending industries would take place afterwards. We would be then in the position of having a tariff and not getting the effect of the tariff.
When four or five years have elapsed this Bill can be amended. It is comparatively easy to introduce and get passed through the Oireachtas a Bill of one or two clauses embodying necessary amendments. I believe that is the better way. If we now provide means whereby people other than those engaged in industries can have inquiries instituted before the Tariff Commission, I believe we will hold up development and this thing will drag along for many more years without enabling the people in the country to come to any definite conclusions on the subject of the imposition of tariffs.
I would not object to the proposal put forward by Senator Sir John Keane, because it is clearly understood that there is no intention of touching existing duties, and it is clearly understood that proposals for modification, renewal or abolition must come from those engaged in the industries. No harm can be done by this proposal, but I think it could have unfortunate results if it went any further. When these tariffs have been in operation for four or five years more, when the results are clearly understood, when the people who invested money have established themselves so that it is not merely a case of having actually expended money and having no return, then further legislation, if such is necessary, could be enacted.
Amendment declared carried.
I desire to move the following amendment:—
Section 2, sub-section (1). To insert after the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Every applicant for the imposition of a duty or the increase of an existing duty must show
(a) that the industry is of substantial importance;
(b) that the industry has suffered from exceptional competition resulting in serious unemployment;
(c) that there has been unfair competition owing to currency depreciation or inferior labour condition in competing countries;
(d) that the granting of the application in whole or in part would not be injurious to other Irish industries using the same product."
This amendment is an attempt to obtain from the Government a declaration of policy, and, if it is passed, to ensure a certain policy. There is nothing more perplexing than the broad principles of this fiscal question. Those of us who are free traders make no apology whatever for being free traders. We dislike tampering with this fiscal question. We desire to keep up with the times, however, and if we are to embark on this very tortuous and very unsatisfactory path, we say that tariffs should be confined to existing industries that are prejudiced owing to abnormal conditions. We say that tariffs should not be used to stimulate industries that are inefficient and dying; they should not be used to start new industries in uncongenial and unsuitable surroundings, the argument being that if conditions were suitable industries would be already started; at any rate, a large number of industries would be already started.
We might make certain exceptions in the case of heavy industries in connection with which large amounts of capital are required. Of course many big industries have small beginnings. Let us take as an example the ready-made clothing industry. We strongly object to the imposition of duty on an industry of that kind, which requires no very great technical skill and requires a comparatively small amount of capital. What real justification there ever was for a duty on an industry of that kind, I cannot say. Under natural conditions it had been flourishing here. Now the Government consider it wise that it should be fostered, of course at the expense of the consumer. The Minister is, no doubt, aware that one of the effects of the duty on ready-made clothing is to encourage people with comparatively small means to get together a few pounds to enable them to take a holiday on the other side of the Channel, where clothing is very much cheaper, and where they frequently are able to buy clothes and even pay the duty for a total cost that compares favourably with our prices here. That is a well-known fact, and no amount of restrictions will do away with a certain amount of it. I just give that as an illustration. One might go on for hours illustrating the slippery path of all the evasions, all the psychology and all the subtlety that will enter into this, once you embark on this protectionist doctrine. In implementing that admission the free trader will say the only possible justification for protection is the case of industries being hit by abnormal conditions. This amendment claims to affect industries of substantial importance, industries that have suffered from exceptional competition, resulting in serious unemployment, or industries that have had to meet unfair competition owing to currency depreciation or inferior labour conditions in competing countries, and where the granting of the application in whole or in part would not be injurious to other Irish industries using the same product. Currency depreciation enables a country whose currency has been depreciated to take advantage of low wages, where the workers are working under worse condition than in countries which have stable currencies. But even there the free trader will not admit or even go so far as to say that there is a case at all by which the protectionist has anything to fear on the grounds of currency depreciation, or inferior labour conditions in competing countries. I hope that the Government will accept this point of view, that the industries comprised in this amendment are the industries only worth taking trouble about, and that before the Commission starts to report on the schedule it should be satisfied that the conditions laid down in the amendment are fulfilled and that no application should be made until the Commission is satisfied that these conditions have been fulfilled.
I oppose this amendment. I take the first point in it, which is that the industry must be one of substantial importance. Within my own recollection a firm called Dunlops attempted to start a tyre manufacturing works here. If they went before this Tariff Commission it would not have been deemed of substantial importance. I do not know exactly what the capital of Dunlops is at the moment, but we all know that it is many millions at least. Had they required a little encouragement here at the inception of their undertaking they would not have got it had such an amendment as this been in operation.
Is the Senator implying that Dunlops was built up behind a fiscal barrier under protectionist duties?
I said nothing of the kind, although Dunlops have gone into other countries and employed labour in these protected countries. They make their tyres there and employ labour in these countries and not in England, We all know what happened to Dunlops' shares after the war. If Senator Sir John Keane does not know, at least they know well in Belfast. Another industry of which I know something that was not encouraged here was the margarine industry. Taking what was the late United Kingdom, margarine was first made in Ireland. It is now made very largely in England, and the capital involved in the industry runs into something over £50,000,000. If Senator Sir John Keane's amendment were adopted, that is another industry that would not have been deemed worthy of protection. Lately we have all heard a lot of artificial silk. That is a very important industry in Australia. In connection with that industry I have here a cutting from an Australian paper. Mr. Watt, in the House of Representatives in Melbourne, introduced a motion imposing a tariff on artificial silk of 20 per cent., an intermediate tariff of another 20 per cent. and a general tariff of 25 per cent. as compared with the previous duties of 10, 12½ and 20 per cent. I cannot understand Senator Sir John Keane's mentality. I do not think he recognises it himself, but it seems to be that before any industry of importance could be established it must be of importance ab initio to fulfil his conditions. In that case it is less likely to want protection. Of course, he does say that to establish any industry you must make it safe from unfair competition or from depreciated currencies and inferior labour conditions. To-day, for the first time, I have heard him voice that particular view.
Let me call the attention of the House to some of the onerous conditions which Irish industrial enterprises have to bear up against. Money is spent very largely on our rather expensive, but I think fairly efficient, Department of Agriculture. A great number of experts and necessarily highly-paid officials go about the country instructing our farmers. Specially selected cattle are purchased by the Department and made available for our farmers to enable them to improve their breeding stocks. Besides that, there is the sugar beet industry which is subsidised by the Government. Most of the money which goes in this way is an indirect subsidy to agriculture and must of necessity, in part at all events, be drawn from the industrial sections of the country. Are the industrialists of the country to suffer all these handicaps without any consideration for themselves when they are in difficulties? As Senator Sir John Keane must know, they are in difficulties at present owing to existing world conditions. The cost of living here, whatever be the cause, is ten points higher than in England, and that apparently must not be taken into consideration at all by the Commission when they come to consider the lists of cases which may be given consideration by them. I ask the House not to accept the amendment.
I cannot quite understand Senator Dowdall's objection to the first clause of this amendment that "the industry is of substantial importance." The Senator has quoted several industries, amongst them margarine, that now are very great. Surely he does not mean that he wants the Government to take up now the manufacture of margarine and to put a duty on it against imported margarine, thereby to establish a margarine industry here at the expense of the rest of the community.
Certainly not. My reasons in arguing against the amendment are perfectly plain: that if an industry is not of substantial importance, or, to quote the amendment again, if it is not potentially of substantial importance and at the moment is not of substantial importance or likely to become so in the future, that then it would be ruled out by this amendment.
I am trying to get at what Senator Dowdall really means. When we were discussing the Finance Bill last week I drew attention to articles which I argued should not be protected. One was the twopenny-half-penny business of cider and perry and the other oatmeal. I do not think there is anyone in the State who believes that any great improvement is going to follow protection in the case of these articles. I ask Senators to look at the labour and the cost that will be involved in collecting the proposed duty on oatmeal and of watching the quantities of cider that come into the country. I think Senator Dowdall himself will agree that if an industry does not promise to be of potential importance in the future that it ought not to be considered. I am afraid that we are going to enter into very bad business indeed if we protect every little industry that seems to someone or other to need protection, and if we are going to employ all our Customs officials in seeing that such an industry is protected. I ask Senator Dowdall to remember that we are not discussing this matter purely from the point of view of free trade or protection. What most of us are aiming at is to point out the difficulties that are in the way and to try and get the best we can out of this Bill. I cannot see what objection there can be to the suggestion that the Minister should be satisfied that an industry will, eventually, be of substantial importance to the country before he would recommend to the Commission that it be given protection. I hold that if we put a provision in the Bill to that effect —that the Minister must be satisfied— that the Commission will be saved from a good deal of criticism in the case of small industries looking for protection. Even if these small industries were given protection it would be of no use to them. Before the Minister would recommend any application for protection to the Commission he should, I think, be satisfied that the industry concerned was going to be of substantial importance to the country, and that it was calculated to give employment. As regards unfair competition, the same thing occurs again, depreciation of currency and wages in foreign countries. These are points undoubtedly which the Minister himself will have to consider before he takes the matter to the Commission. Every applicant for the imposition of a duty must, I take it, show his case to the Minister. These are the only points the Minister will have to consider. Probably the Minister's answer will be "I will have to consider these things," but I cannot see what injury it is to the Bill to have it put in that he must consider them.
I think it would make all the difference to the amendment if Senator Sir John Keane would add to paragraph (a) of his amendment the words "or potentially substantial importance." In other words, if it could be shown that there were industries which at the time of the application might not be of substantial importance, but that if they got a small help would possibly develop, or that there might be the possibility of a big industry being started if it were helped.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I was wondering whether it would not meet the case by inserting: "that the industry gives promise of substantial importance"?
The House must not forget that the one clause in the Treaty that was fought for tooth and nail and conceded with the greatest reluctance was this clause enabling us to protect our industries. We know that the four conditions mentioned by Senator Sir John Keane are a contradiction of protection. We know that in this country there are no industries of substantial importance that do not represent England's thirst and hunger. I am not keen in seeing this an industrial country, and I think the national character of the Irish people would prevent any slave-working conditions here. I think that even "potential importance" will not take the sting out of these four conditions Senator Sir John Keane wishes to impose. Nitrate from the air can be made when the current from the Shannon scheme is developed. The Government have not announced their intentions or policy with regard to protection, and I think they should be given a vote of thanks for that, considering that the text of what they have announced has made such a difficulty and been such a cause of confusion. If the bottleworks at Ringsend had been allowed to fall through, then the Government would have got whipped with scorpions. These bottles made at Ringsend might not be admirable, and perhaps, as Senator Sir John Keane said, they might not be sold for Waterford glass. I think the first duty of a Government to its nation is to see that the people have employment, even if it means putting a 50 or 100 per cent. duty on imported articles. The bottle-making industry in this country was about to fail owing to competition, but it was saved by the clause we had to fight for tooth and nail.
Senator Jameson said that the cost of collection might stultify the import taxes that would be imposed. That is a thing England has been living on. It does not matter if you collect cockles, the money paid to the officers who take the tariff, who collect the taxes at the different ports, is part of the existence of the national life. England's nationals in India, and up to a few years ago in this country, need not have returned any revenue. They were making their livelihood and keeping their families in other parts of the world; in other words, they were living on the revenue they collected, and whether anything came to the Exchequer or not did not matter because they were prosperous. That keeps a country's flag flying whether it be Imperial or otherwise. I want to draw attention to the argument that if a tax does not return revenue it is futile. That is not so. It provides employment and it preserves the culture of any nation that tries to establish itself at the expense of another nation. If these clauses were to be taken one by one, and Senator Sir John Keane has made no provision that they should not be taken holus bolus, they are merely formulæ for the contradiction of free trade. Apart from that they are impracticable. Anyone who ever considered taxes had to consider whether industries were developed, preserved or abolished or suffering from exceptional competition, or unfair competition with other countries. The new menace we have had after the war is the internationalisation of trusts. The big trusts that used to be national, American, British or German, are now becoming international, to overstep the rate of exchange and benefit by the cheap currency, and get cheap labour in countries where there is a base coinage. That will be the cause of the next war. We need not bring that state of affairs into this country, nor need we consider the competition of black and yellow labour, even though the tin and copper of England has to be mined by Chinese. Dunlop tyres are made by darkies in Calcutta and Japan. As a matter of fact, we lost that industry here as a penalty for the highly-developed æstheticism of Dublin, which objected to the smell when it was proposed to start the industry in Dublin.
I would like to reply to some remarks made by Senator Jameson to-day, and which he made also in connection with the Finance Bill, about oatmeal. Milling was one of our most important industries forty years ago, and we used to supply the Irish and English market. That industry has been going down, and probably would have disappeared were it not for the tariff. I am satisfied, as a result of the tariff on oatmeal, that mills that had been working half-time last year are working full time to-day. When the new crop comes in there will be dozens of mills working that had not been working for the last ten years, and that is a result of the tariff. That means increased employment and, a more important result, providing a good market for the farmer. I am surprised to see a representative of the farming industry crying out against the tariff, considering the result of the imposition on imported oatmeal, and that farmers will be getting 2/- or 3/- a barrel more for their oats. Millers are now asking farmers when their oats will be ready. Last year the farmer could not sell his oats, and numbers of farmers came to me with oats which I could not buy, and it was the same with others. That will not be so this year. In fact, there will not be enough of oats grown to meet the milling requirements. There is a huge trust in Canada and the United States who land oatmeal in Dublin at £14 per ton, when they were getting £18 for it in New York. If we sent oatmeal to those countries we would have to pay a duty of 1d. a lb., but we, in our kindness of heart, and owing to our free trade principles, were taking oatmeal from the trusts in America. I have known Irish farmers to sell their oats and then buy American oatmeal. It is time to stop that and to give employment by providing a good market for the farmer and, at the same time, giving the consumer the same value at the same price. The price of Irish oatmeal will not be dearer. It is not dearer now than it was six months ago. The tariff on oatmeal means that as much employment will be given in our mills as has been given in the brewing and the distilling trades.
If there is to be no increase in price to the consumer, where is the benefit? How is the miller who is going to sell the Irish article at the same price as the imported article going to give more employment, and how is he going to pay two or three shillings extra per barrel for oats?
The price of Irish oatmeal has not increased. Formerly foreign oatmeal was sold as Irish oatmeal. That cannot be done now.
Free trade or protection has been regarded as a most profitable subject for debating societies, and apparently on every amendment we are going to discuss principles. I am opposed to the amendment, not for the reasons that have been urged against it, but because it is contrary to the spirit of the Bill. According to the amendment the Minister must satisfy himself before he refers an application to the Commission that it is included in the schedule, on which, under the Bill, he has to ask expert opinion. In other words, the Minister has practically to inquire first into an application and, having made up his mind, then refer it to the Commission. I suggest that that is absurd. If the Bill is to be useful I do not think we could agree to that.
I think Senator Douglas has summed the matter up. Senator Sir John Keane's amendment proposes practically, that if we think an industry is guilty we give it no trial, but if we think it is innocent, we might give it a trial. The Bill directs that certain matters set out at considerable length in the schedule should be reported upon by the Commission. Senator Sir John Keane says that if the Commission is not satisfied it shall make no inquiries. He proposes that the Commission shall be satisfied about certain things without inquiry, shall be satisfied "that the industry if of substantial importance," and various other things. Without an inquiry it cannot be satisfied. I think this is a proposal that should not be accepted by the Seanad. It would also nullify the whole principle of the Bill and would make it inoperative if we were to insist that each one of the four conditions set out in the amendment should be complied with. Before any inquiry shall be made, for instance, every applicant must show (a) that the industry is of substantial importance; (b) that the industry has suffered from exceptional competition resulting in serious unemployment. If the unemployment was only coming on, and if the industry was carrying on at a loss, no inquiry could take place. If there was unfair competition, inferior conditions of labour, and dumping, no inquiry could take place. I think the amendment would be unworkable if passed and would make the Bill entirely inoperative. If we are to work the Bill I think we could not do so with this amendment included in it. I think Senators discussed Sir John Keane's amendment as if the four provisos were alternative. They are not. They must be added together. As to (a) that the industry is of substantial importance, it might be an industry of very great promise. I think that an industry of great promise but which is not yet "of substantial importance" is the very industry that should get protection. An industry that has been of importance but which has fallen away is perhaps much more doubtful.
Section 2 states "the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, refer applications to the Commission." Under Senator Sir John Keane's amendment I take it that the Minister does not go into the merits of the application. The matter is left entirely for consideration by the Commission. In supporting the amendment I believe that we are merely supporting the Bill as it stands. I take it that the Commission would have to inquire whether an industry is of importance and whether it is suffering from exceptional or unfair competition. I think the amendment can be brought into line with Section 2 of the Bill.
I think the amendment, if passed as it stands, would mean nothing, and could be easily evaded. I would not recommend adoption of the amendment except on that ground. It is only of practical importance when related to the next amendment. I take it that the intention is to prevent the Commission considering applications unless it is satisfied on several points.
Senator Jameson asked a question that should be answered as it is the foundation of all this discussion. He asked "How was it possible for prices to be kept at the same level under protection?" That is easily answered. The price of an article very often depends on the quantity produced. If an English cotton or woollen mill can supply an article at the same price as an Irish mill, and if they supply half the Irish market, then the Irish mill, in competing, will have heavier overhead charges than it would have if it supplied the whole country. The Irish mill, by losing half the trade, would be obliged to raise the price in order to meet the overhead charges. I think that is a clear answer to Senator Jameson. I have supported Senator Sir John Keane's other amendments, but as an independent Senator I must now vote against him.
I had not read Senator Sir John Keane's second amendment when I spoke last. If we pass this amendment it would make a bigger change in the Bill than I contemplated. It would mean that the Commission would act under orders. I do not think we ought to alter the Bill so as to take power away from the Minister and hand it over to the Commission.
We have had a long discussion on this matter on all the points raised by Senator Sir John Keane's amendment. They are met in the schedule, which reads: "Such other economic industrial and administrative aspects of the application as appear to the Commission to be relevant to the determination of the merits and demerits of the application." That includes the quality of the industry.
Amendment put and negatived.
Amendment 6 not moved.
I move:—
Section 2, sub-section (3). To add after the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) When any report is made by the Commission in favour of the establishment of a tariff, it shall contain a recommendation that no higher price shall be permitted to be charged in the Saorstát for any articles which are being, or which it is proposed shall be, produced there than is being charged for the same article outside the Saorstát."
Like the man who said that he was not a bigoted teetotaller, I am prepared to admit that I am not a bigoted free trader. I make that admission in the hope that my amendment will not be attacked with the same venom with which some of Senator Sir John Keane's amendments have been attacked. I should also admit that I am not a bigoted protectionist. I support the Bill because I think it is eminently necessary that every question should be examined on its own merits. There is no question that one of the great drawbacks to protection which have been experienced in many places, notably in America, and largely in Germany, has been that the people in the protected countries have been called on to pay a price for the protected article which is greatly in excess of the cost of production. That is done with the object of enabling them to dump the goods on another country at a price which is less than the cost of production. There are numerous instances of that, and I think we had, in a small way, in this country, an instance given on the last day on which this Bill was discussed, namely, the position in regard to Ford cars. I hope I am not treading on the corns of any Cork Senators. I do not mean that these cars get any direct tariffs, but they get indirect advantages. We were informed that the Ford car is sold in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at £20 less than it is sold here. I want to prevent anything of that sort occurring in connection with this Bill. I think it would be highly unjust that a tariff should be put on an article manufactured here, and that under cover of the tariff the price should be entirely in excess of the article when sold in England or elsewhere. That is a matter which requires to be guarded against in protective legislation.
I think the amendment is wholly impracticable. The amendment says:—"When any report is made by the Commission in favour of the establishment of a tariff, it shall contain a recommendation..." As I understand it, the Commissioners are not to make any recommendation but merely to inquire. Then again, who is to determine whether a price is high or low, dear or cheap? Cheapness and dearness are relative terms and must be considered——
The Senator is quite wrong. I never proposed any such thing. I proposed that in the case of a tariff being established there shall be a proviso that in future an article shall not be sold at a price in the Saorstát which is higher than that at which the producer is selling elsewhere.
Who is to determine that? What is the machinery to determine it? If there are complaints about articles manufactured by an industry that is protected here, I would not object to machinery being set up to prevent manufacturers exploiting the tariff in that way.
I am not saying whether the amendment is practicable or not, but I think, if it goes to a vote, it will test the sincerity of those who say that the foreigner pays the tax, and that if he pays the tax it does not matter. It will also be interesting to see the attitude taken up by protectionists who say that prices do not rise. They say that they are not increasing prices. I hope they will be consistent and support the amendment.
Will the Senator tell us who said that prices did not rise? Is it not better to pay a little more than send money out of the country? No Senator in favour of tariffs mentioned that tariffs did not increase prices somewhat.
It is not a question of retaining money in this country or of spending a little more money, but a question of paying more money to the importer and paying a higher price for an article manufactured abroad. What Senator Barrington is really trying to do is to prevent the dumping of articles which cannot be sold in one country but which can be sold in another, at a lower rate than in the country of its manufacture.
I do not think that the occasion is likely to arise in our lifetime when we can produce so largely as to compete with the foreigner and actually dump articles in other countries. Senator Sir John Keane says that the foreigner pays the tax.
I did not say that. I said that that is the argument used by protectionists.
It is by securing a large export trade that the commodity will gain, as there will be more trade and more employment by selling at an increased profit. I think at this stage it is not wise for us to go into abstract arguments which are outside the scope of a Bill whose object is to probe the question as to whether we are, or are not, to have tariffs.
In my opinion it verges on absurdity to pass a Bill for the setting up of a tribunal that will inquire into certain matters and then to prescribe what its recommendations should be. I think it is hardly necessary for me to go further into the amendment. It is quite probable that the Commission will never report in favour of the establishment of tariffs, because it will deal with the various aspects of the applications and will leave it to be deduced whether a tariff should be put on or not. There is nothing asking the Commission to report in favour of or against the tariff, and in any case even if the Commission did report in favour of a tariff its recommendations would carry no weight and effect nothing, so from either point of view I think the amendment just borders on absurdity.
I should like a ruling as to whether this amendment is in order.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are a bit late, because the discussion is over.
What I mean is the Commission has no power to recommend anything, but only to report.
CATHAOIRLEACH
This would give it to them.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
PROPOSED NEW SECTION.
I move (8):—
New section. After Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—
"4.—No practising barrister or solicitor shall be eligible to appear before the Commission on behalf of a person making or opposing an application under Section 2 of this Act."
The object of this amendment is to give all parties engaged in these negotiations who come before the Commission equal opportunity. The amendment is actuated by the experience of many countries. We know the influence of big trusts and powerful interests, in spite of the phrase "One man one vote" and all the rest of it. How it is done I do not profess to know, but that is the fact. Here is an illustration of how you can see big money working. A powerful interest can go to the very best counsel, and it is absurd to say that even the most distinguished civil servants are not affected by the forensic skill of Senator Brown or other distinguished counsel. Otherwise why do such distinguished counsel earn such large fees? They earn it before the judges. I do not suppose that this Commission would be more impervious to arguments than a distinguished judge. What will happen if you do not safeguard this is, that you will get those big interests able to pay big fees to brief an expensive and fashionable counsel, and other interests who are less united, such as agriculture, will only be able to pay a very second-rate counsel. There are plenty of precedents in this. I do not know whether it was a ruling made by the Commission itself or whether it was under the enabling Act, that no counsel could appear before the Coal Commission. In that case the employers put up their case and the trade unions put up theirs.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is probably why it has been abortive.
I suggest that is why it did not take very long. It had to report within a certain time, and if it had an array of counsel it would still be going on. At any rate I think you get much more fairness, and you bring the small and the rich man nearer together. It is possible that a small man will be affected and will be incapable of meeting all the arguments put up by a fashionable counsel.
This is an extraordinary attitude on the part of Senator Sir John Keane, who, the other day, contradicted me for suggesting that influence is necessary for corruption. I bore that, as I thought it came from a change of heart. I was not going to suggest then that a doctor should raise twenty years' purchase of the dispensary to do a little canvassing. When Senator Sir John Keane took up the cudgels, naturally I laid down the wand. Now he suggests that there should be no free trade in barristry here and that anyone should not employ counsel. It really means depriving the struggling industries of representation. When barristers are unduly suspected by people like Senator Sir John Keane, I suspect that there is more than meets the eye in the amendment, and for that reason I will not vote for it.
I am in favour of this amendment. I have had often the experience of being opposed to leading counsel because employers were always able to brief counsel to state their case. Trade unions had to state their own case. Senator Sir John Keane said something about big fees, and said he could not understand it. It is easy to understand it. These people have a really good trade union. They fix their own rate of wages which other employees cannot do, and more power to them. That is the explanation of the big fees. The principle in this amendment is good. If a case has to be stated on behalf of the industry, the people engaged in that industry are the people to state a case for and against it. The briefing of an eminent barrister is not going to help the case. I do not believe that a civil servant would be influenced or overawed by the presence of a counsel, from my experience of the stating of a case with regard to business. On many occasions I have been opposed on the employers' side by leading counsel, and I go so far as to say that no matter how clever barristers may be they do not understand the case with regard to industrial matters. The case for and against tariffs can be stated by every employer. They understand the case as a whole. They are not talking to influence the jury. They are stating the facts of the case which can be understood by everyone, and for that reason I support the amendment.
Senator Sir John Keane's plea on behalf of the abolition of counsel in such an inquiry reminds me of the fable of the wolf and the lamb. It is to be assumed that weak or struggling industries will apply for protection. We are told, they, having endless funds, can employ the best counsel and make their case against the poor importer. We all know what the importer's interest is in this country. It is the most powerful interest that exists, and to say they will be afraid that the huge funds, at the disposal of these struggling industries, will prevent them from making their case before the Commission is rather absurd, or, in other words, that this weak lamb is fouling the water of the wolf upstream.
Are the Commissioners to have other powers to make regulations with regard to the method of hearing a case? If so, this is a matter that it would be better to have dealt with by them. Now, I do not think it is desirable to have arrays of barristers on each side. I do not agree that the Bill is in favour of any particular section either for or against. I think it is drastic to put into an Act a specific provision that there is to be no barrister or solicitor, because you employ accountants. When you want an inquiry it is better to put the question to the man concerned. I think if the Commission had power to make regulations it would be much the better way.
The position is that the Commission has power to make regulations. It is because it has that power and because the amendment would fetter the discretion of the Commission that I oppose it. I have had a talk with one or two persons who are, at any rate, possible members of the Commission, and the probability is that the Commission will make regulations restricting the appearance and employment of counsel in applications coming before them, but to say that in no instance should counsel appear upon an application, or to oppose an application, is going a little bit too far. While not having counsel appearing for them an association representing a particular industry making an application might have a whole-time secretary who would have the whole case thoroughly made up. He would be really taking the place of a barrister, and it might be only fair that those opposing that application should be able to employ counsel to represent their case. That may occur. As Senator Douglas mentioned, they might not employ a barrister or solicitor, but an accountant. I think, in any case, the advantages that can be got by moneyed people would not in any way be lessened by his amendment. The side that has money can always employ experts and it will perhaps get even non-legal experts as legal experts, because the proceedings before the Commission will be for the purpose of eliciting facts. Legal arguments or legal knowledge will not come into it a great deal. I think nothing will be gained either for the rich applicant or the poor applicant by adopting the amendment. On the other hand, sometimes in certain situations some difficulty might be created for the Commission. The Commission will have power to make regulations, and I think it should be allowed to make regulations, and to amend them, if experience shows that they require amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
PROPOSED NEW SECTION.
I beg to move:—
After Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—
"In the case of witnesses the only expenses payable shall be the expenses of witnesses appearing on behalf of persons opposing any application."
This amendment is put forward in view of the experience of the enormous advantages that accrue to those interestel by the imposition of a tariff. It is only right that such parties should pay the expenses. The putting forward of such applications should not be encouraged and this is a form of discouragement. The plaintiff should be compelled to pay the costs of all his witnesses, and where it is felt that a defence is necessary the expenses of the witnesses examined in opposing the application should be paid. I should like an explanatory statement from the Minister with regard to the expenses of witnesses or the various parties appearing before the Commission.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think the question of expenses other than those of the members of a Commission itself is dealt with at all. It is not anticipated that any parties appearing before the Commission will be awarded costs or expenses.
They will not, in general, pay anything. There will, in general, be no payment of witnesses' expenses. If the Commission itself desires the attendance of experts, whether for or against a tariff or for or against an application, I think their expenses would have to be paid.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SCHEDULE—PROPOSED NEW PARAGRAPH.
I move:—
After paragraph 8 to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"9.—To what extent, if any, the imported goods in respect of which an application is made are the outcome of unfair competition resulting from currency depreciation, subsidies, bounties, lower wages, longer hours or inferior conditions of labour."
As some Senator may be making a point in regard to the absurdity of this amendment, I may say that a similar amendment has already been inserted in the British Safeguarding of Industries Act. I have not got the exact words, but it is in operation. It is a definite heading of which Committees under the Board of Trade have to take cognisance. In any case that is my information. It is the only justification for protection, and it should certainly be embodied and set out.
It would certainly lead to some overlapping or duplication, because already the attention of the Commission is directed to the cost, efficiency, conditions of labour and rates of wages in the industry in respect of which the application is made as compared with such cost, efficiency, conditions and rates in other countries.
I had regard to that, but that is very general. This term, "currency depreciation," does not arise at all. It specifically arises under the Safeguarding of Industries Act in England, and I think it is an important factor. If the Minister puts in these words somewhere I shall be satisfied. I should much prefer to have them inserted in the schedule, even if it is a case of overlapping. It is no real harm, although it may be untidy, to make a schedule as wide as possible.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If you left out everything after the word "bounties" it probably would be acceptable.
I am satisfied to do so.
CATHAOIRLEACH
What you have enumerated in the last line is already provided for.
Subsidies and bounties are not mentioned anywhere in the Bill although they may be implicit. It is always more satisfactory when they are explicit.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Minister has intimated that he will accept the amendment if you make it read: "To what extent, if any, the imported goods in respect of which an application is made are the outcome of unfair competition resulting from currency depreciation, subsidies or bounties."
I will agree to that.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
PREAMBLE.
Would I be in order at this stage in introducing words in the nature of a Preamble to the Bill? There is no Preamble in the Bill.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think you should have moved that in the beginning. Where there is a Preamble it is generally postponed until we consider the sections. There was no Preamble to this Bill, so I said nothing about it, but if you had intended to move a Preamble I think you should have given notice of it.
I will bring it up on the Report Stage. It has emerged as the outcome of the debate on Government policy. It is a Preamble that is trying to define policy.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I will not object to your moving it on the Report Stage, because by that time you will have circulated it. The Title is to be amended by inserting after the word "modification" the word "abolition." Will you move that?
I move that.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported.
I move:—
That the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the remaining Stages of the Tariff Commission Bill, 1926, to be taken to-day, Wednesday, 14th July, 1926.
I second.
Will we have a statement with regard to the business for this week?
CATHAOIRLEACH
There is nothing to bring us together again, as far as I know. We have undertaken to meet on Thursday week.
I understand that the Dáil is meeting on the 20th, and it is essential that we should pass this Bill before then. We should either take it to-day or arrange for a convenient time to take it.
I oppose taking it to-day. I quite appreciate the fact that some Senators take a much less serious view of this measure than I do. To my mind it is a measure which cuts deeply into our social system, and it should not be taken through its remaining Stages to-day, as I wish to obtain some declaration of policy.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You could not well get that on Report. Perhaps you might have a compromise by getting the Report through now and having the Final Reading on the 22nd.
That might create difficulties. The Bill may have to go to and fro.
This is a very important measure, one of the most important we have discussed, and I would like to treat it with proper ceremony. Could we meet to-morrow?
CATHAOIRLEACH
You certainly could, but comparing our knowledge of, and information on, the subject to-day with what they will be to-morrow, I see nothing to be gained by that unless Senator Sir John Keane would like to have a night for the further consideration of the measure.
Is there any great objection to the Preamble suggested by Senator Sir John Keane?
Senator Sir John Keane wants the Seanad to have more time to think over what has happened and what will happen, and does not want us to proceed straight away.
Senator Sir John Keane is against the Bill, root and branch, with or without a Preamble. His motion was to postpone the Bill indefinitely.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We are dealing with a different question now, as to whether he ought to be given special facilities. Senator Sir John Keane's point is that it ought to go through the ordinary course, having regard to its importance.
Motion put and declared carried.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be considered on Report."
I desire to introduce the following words in the nature of a Preamble:—
"Whereas it is desirable to establish and foster industries in Saorstát Eireann without prejudice to the export trade of Saorstát Eireann and without substantially increased cost to the consumer."
The effect of that amendment, I submit, would be as a headline with regard to the wide operation of the Bill——
Is not this out of order without notice?
CATHAOIRLEACH
We are all out of order, because we have suspended all the Standing Orders. If we are to have the Bill put through to-day I cannot offer any objection to the Senator moving an amendment of which he has given no notice. He was not bound to anticipate that the House would do this. We must be fair to both sides.
This is the best that I can do. I do not think that anybody, unless a wild and absolute fanatic on this subject, could object to the words. Advisedly, they are elastic, and they would to a certain degree protect, and I do not suppose that Senator Dowdall would wish to prejudice the consumer or to prejudice our export trade. Unless he wishes to prejudice our export trade and to increase substantially the cost to the consumer he should accept this form of words.
I am sufficiently fanatical to oppose this. I do not know if the Senator appreciates the fact that we have 50,000 people unemployed and that 20,000 to 30,000 people leave the country every year for America. This is, I think, the richest and most fertile country in Europe. Our people are not lacking in intelligence, and simply because there are no facilities and avenues of employment for them they have to leave the country. I do not hear any complaints from the countries to which they go that they are so ineffective or so useless that they cannot make a living in these countries, and I know from experience—I was in Lancashire for a great many years—that many of the most expert textile operators are Irish, and in Glasgow and on the Clyde in engineering. This is fantastic opposition by people who are opposed to the establishment of industries in this country, even though it may necessarily mean that for some time the cost of living will be raised to some extent, and I throw back the taunt of fanaticism in their faces. I am in favour of the establishment of industries in this country at some cost, even though the cost be considerable. I oppose the introduction of this Preamble as a pointer to limit the discretion of the Commissioners with regard to the cost of living. I object to any restriction, even in a Preamble. I know that it is not statutorily binding, but I object to its being put in to attempt to bind the Commissioners as to what they should do.
I am not at all sure that Senators who believe that this Bill is specially in the direction of protection are justified in their belief. I would not call it a step in the direction of protection, but I certainly would call it a very useful and very important step to enable the country to make up its mind as to whether it is to have protection or free trade. I think that the Bill is an admirable one, that its purpose is admirable, and that the Government deserves to be congratulated on bringing it in. But I do not go so far as to agree that this Bill of necessity means a policy of protection. What I think it will do will be to induce people to begin to think about it, to think out for themselves whether they want a free trade policy or a protection policy. The country has not made up its mind on this question. The country has not had time to think about it. It has been too busy on other things. But it may be, and I hope it will be, that this measure will help to make the country consider the question, and it may be that it will result in the establishment of a free trade party and a protectionist party. I am not at all certain that it would not be for the public advantage if it did, because it might be that if we could get divided on any present-day or future question, and if we could disagree as vehemently upon that question as we have on other questions, ancient or recent, it would have a most excellent effect in wiping out many of our existing divisions. If we could manage to divide the country between two policies like that I think it would be to the public advantage.
I am cordially in favour of this measure. I do not think there is any necessity to amend the Preamble; I do not suppose it would have any effect. The Commission unquestionably will consider the relative importance of industries in this country and the condition under which each can be started. Personally I have not made up my mind yet whether this country would be better industrialised or as an agricultural country. It is very hard to make up one's mind on a question of this sort. It may be it would be better for this country to be industrialised or partially industrialised. There will be a great opportunity for promoting industrialism in this country when the Shannon scheme is completed. Then, when we have power, it may be that by the manipulation of tariffs we may induce foreign manufacturers to settle here and to promote industries in this country. That, to my mind, would be all to the good. I have not yet decided whether, broadly, protection or free trade is the better for the majority of the people. That is what we have to make up our minds about, and that is, after all, the only thing that matters. If we make up our minds that the wellbeing of the majority will be promoted by protection then we should be protectionists. If we think the advantage of the majority is going to be promoted by free trade, then the majority will be free traders.
Of course, if you are a producer it may be, but it does not necessarily follow, that you will be a protectionist. If you are a consumer it is more than likely you would not be a protectionist. We have to consider the balance of advantage and whether it would be for the good of the country or not to adopt a system of protection or to continue a modified condition of free trade. There is no doubt whatever that there are certain industries in this country that could be protected, and protected with advantage. I do not name them now. I do not want to pre-judge the case, but I am satisfied that there are some industries that can be protected with some advantage to the community. On the other hand, whether the advantage would be counterbalanced by other disadvantages is a matter that we cannot make up our minds on just yet. I think that the step the Government have taken, in appointing a Commission to go into this matter dispassionately and intelligently, is a very admirable step indeed in the general interests of the country.
I feel I have to object to this amendment. I think it is another attempt to put free trade shackles upon this Bill. The Government has designed the Bill to bring about ideal industrial conditions in this country which to my mind are—everybody at work. We hear a lot of talk about the cost of tariffs to the export trade, but in countries with a bigger export trade than ours there are no such objections taken. For instance, Australia's trade is large, but Australia has five times the number of tariffs that we have, yet she exports to England so successfully that she is able to compete with our farmers and to oust them out of the markets.
I do not think the proposed amendment is necessary, and I am sorry to say I disagree with Senator Sir John Keane on some very vital points. We start from a different basis. My basis is that next to the maintenance of order the employment of the people is the first duty of the Government. Senator Sir John Keane no doubt thinks that the cost of living is more important and probably he starts from that basis. But I do not see much use in having the cost of living cheap if you have not got the money to buy the necessaries of life. If you cannot get employment in your own country you have to go elsewhere. I am certainly supported by one who was considered to be a great authority in this country on national economics— that is Arthur Griffith. I will read one sentence which I hope will disabuse the minds of those who think that he was not in favour of protection —though that statement was made by one of our Ministers only a few days ago. The following is a sentence from Sinn Fein written by Arthur Griffith:
"The reason our citizens are unemployed is because we are debarred from fostering our suppressed industries by the only policy that has ever proved effectual—the adoption of protective tariffs."
I oppose Senator Sir John Keane's amendment because I believe not only would his Preamble not improve the Bill but it would be innocuous. It would give indications which I certainly could not support. We desire to develop and foster industries, but to say that we only want to foster them without prejudice to our export trade may be, in certain circumstances, going too far. If we develop the leather-tanning industry, dealing, say, with sole leather, we probably would have a disappearance of our exports of hides, but because we were likely to have our export trade in hides prejudiced we would not refuse to have a tanning industry. So the proposed Preamble, as it stands, goes too far. Then, again, while we do not want any increase in the cost of living, it may be that the best policy would be to have, for a time, a substantial increase to the consumer. That took place in the case of cigarettes. When our own financial system was established we took over the existing British tariffs. By taking them over we got a very substantial measure of protection in regard to cigarettes, and there was a substantial increase at once in the price of cigarettes. The result of that substantial increase was that new factories were set up here, and now the great majority of brands of cigarettes are just as cheap as in outside countries and as if there had been no tariff. Now consider if, instead of having a substantial increase, there had been a slight increase, the position would be that no factories would be set up. The population would bear the small increase and continue bearing it.
The Preamble sets out principles to which I could not subscribe without a great deal more of elaboration than would be possible to-day or even after several days. It sets out principles which we could not assent to and which I think the Seanad should not assent to. There is no need for any Preamble. The object of the Bill appears quite clearly. It is to ascertain facts. It is to have the facts set out clearly so that the decision of policy may be taken by the Executive Council and on their recommendation or advice by the Oireachtas.
The decision of policy! What policy? That is the whole point. There is only one other remark I want to make now, in reply to Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde. He says this is a good Bill because it will enable the country to make up its mind. I want to say that I cannot put any such interpretation on the Bill at all. If it was the case that the issue was still open and that the whole of this protectionist manæuvring for the last three or four years had that object, I would agree with him. He says it is to put the whole country into the possession of the facts. Of course, the whole thing is prejudiced by the existing duties. The Minister says that he will use this Commission to impose other duties as soon as he gets the report, before the country has an opportunity of saying aye or nay.
We will have an election next year.
We will have these duties on new articles before next year, how widely I cannot say. I understand the Minister is to act before next year.
He may or may not.
Amendment put and negatived.
Question—"That the Bill be considered on report"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I hope the Seanad has a certain amount of sympathy with those who have had some hard work in connection with this matter. It is not entirely our own fault that this hard work has been imposed upon us. I do not wish to stress any personal note, but the Seanad will remember that on a former occasion in the case of the Land Bill I was regarded as rather an obstructionist. But if Senators will refresh their memories and study some of the repercussions that followed from that Bill they will admit that I was justified in taking up the line I did. And in years to come I venture to say they will appreciate, as they do not now, the supreme importance of this move I am taking before this Bill passes. It may be said that this policy is practically decided already. It is rather like closing the door after the animal has escaped, but there is a fair range of commodities that are still free, and it is yet time to prevent their inclusion.
At the very best it is only taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other, and that is the net effect of this tariff business. But the principle of that involves "out of which pocket into which pocket"? And it involves the fundamentally unsound effects on our national character. First of all it brings what is a very important question right down to the arena of essentially practical politics. Numbers of interests, instead of accepting the natural laws, are inclined to get loopholes. That is a poison in our national life which is vicious and thoroughly bad. It is bad for the mentality and it is also bad for the energy and the more virile qualities. If people believe that by pulling strings they will get these tariffs, then in this Bill you are going to do something which will enfeeble the economic stamina. As far as I can see, you have only to extend this doctrine of small self-contained nationality far enough and you will have the Gaeltacht in the West wishing to cut away and saying that they shall be a nation to themselves. You get the thing reduced to a perfect absurdity. I contend that Ireland is too small, far too small an area to be a self-contained economic unit. You may say that free trade is an impracticable ideal. But this ideal of little self-contained protective groups is equally impracticable and suicidal. Where is it going to end? Senator Sir Nugent Everard quoted the words of that illustrious Irishman, Arthur Griffith. But I should far prefer in this matter of economics to take my stand on the subject from a different angle and to take it out of the hurly-burly of party polities. Can anybody contend that at the time that Arthur Griffith stated his policy that it was a dispassionate view of economic policy, or that it was ever examined on its merits? But this policy of protection was examined on its merits by experts, and they condemned it, root and branch. Yet their recommendation is thrown overboard, and by a nibbling process we are getting this thing by degrees. The thing is summed up in certain verses that I am going to read. These verses throw a lurid light on what is going on behind the scenes and what the thing means in practical politics. In free trade we know where we are. We know the natural courses that are operating. We have none of this wire-pulling. We say, let the weakest go to the wall; and the wall is a very good place for them to go to. We should not assist people by Acts of Parliament in this matter. Let them stand on their own legs, and if they cannot, let them fall. These lines that I am going to quote have reference to the performance of Mr. Baldwin before the election. They run in this way:
"I'm a plain and simple countryman.
This tariff bothers me.
I cannot make my meaning clear for other folks to see.
For instance, when a heckler asks— and asking seems to scoff—
‘Why put a tax on apples and from cider take it off?'
I'm blessed if I can answer, when I'm out of Worcestershire,
Where people grow the apples and so want them to be dear.
"My Bewdley tariff works all right in Bewdley; but we find
That every other county seems to need a different kind.
Dundonians want free honey, with a tax on marmalades;
Brum would prohibit foreign guns, and Sheffield razor blades.
The politicians prime me; but their primings disagree.
On one side there is Derby, and the other Amery."
I suggest that has a homely application.
When this Bill was introduced into the Dáil I said I would support it, and that, in fact, it would make for good things for the country. In saying that I was largely influenced in my decision by what the Minister, on the occasion of its introduction, stated. He told us many other things. He told us a White Paper containing the evidence will be issued. I am sure that will be very valuable to students of this question, and I think it will tend to create students on the tariff question as a whole. Countries have prospered under free trade. I think there can be no doubt that Ireland did not prosper under free trade. Free trade was imposed on this country, and during that period of free trade Ireland certainly retrograded, and now that we have power to make tariffs it is our bounden duty to consider the question in its broadest aspects and to consider what tariffs we shall indulge in and what tariffs we shall reject.
I think the direction to the Commission in the Schedule certainly contains most of the things which an open-minded man would desire to know, as regards the imposition of any tariffs. I sincerely hope that the Minister will insist upon getting thorough answers to every one of the nine questions in the Schedule. Question 6 sets out the effect which the granting in whole or in part of the concessions asked for in the application would be likely to have on the public revenues of Saorstát Eireann. That, to my mind, is useful. Question 5 states:
The effect which the granting in whole or in part of the concessions asked for in the application would be likely to have on consumers of the goods produced by the industry in respect of which the application is made and on the cost of living.
If that is particularly considered, I do not think there is much danger of any unwholesome tariff being imposed. There are demands for tariffs in the country which should not be allowed. In connection with applications for tariffs, all bases of calculation should be considered by the Tariff Commission or by the Minister. I have in mind an industry where the present costings of the finished article are 110 per cent. over the pre-war costings, and where the consumers, who are 70 to 75 per cent. of the Free State, will be largely people whose finished product is only 40 to 50 per cent. over pre-war prices. I consider the imposition of a tariff in connection with this industry, without first considering closely the implications concerning those people whose finished product is only 40 to 50 per cent. over pre-war, would be unjust and undesirable. I fear that these people whose finished product is only 40 to 50 per cent. more than pre-war will not be organised to prepare for a tariff.
It is essential that every one of these questions set out in the Schedule should be carefully studied. I feel sure that the Minister will not let any tariff be entertained which is unjust. I am quite sure the Minister for Finance is in earnest in this matter. In the tariffs that he has already imposed he has probably done right. I would be in favour of the imposition of a certain incubus on people, even though it increases the cost of living, if it is essential that a particular industry should be developed. I believe eventually such cost of living will not react injuriously on the community. Where any commodity is largely consumed by people in the Saorstát, where the cost of that commodity ranges from 30 to 50 per cent over pre-war, and where the cost of the commodity desiring to be protected brings the figure to 110 per cent., I contend that all these facts should be carefully considered. If it is considered desirable that a tariff should not be imposed, then I, for one, would be quite satisfied. I welcome this Bill. I say it is a distinct advance in the right direction. In my opinion it is up to the Government to consider from every aspect the question of the imposition of tariffs.
My views on this matter will probably be considered very homely and very Irish in their origin and in their expression. I am giving my personal views in connection with the Irish cattle trade and with the farming industry generally. In my native country down around Roscrea, there were, in my own memory, six mills, regular hives of industry. Now I am sorry to say that they have all closed down with one exception. That one mill is being kept alive by the monks of Mount St. Joseph's. The reason that they have been successful in keeping it going is because of free labour. By keeping this mill going the monks have been of great benefit to the district.
In my early days there were six mills working in that area, and farmers had bran and pollard at nominal rates. Pollard was considered particularly useful and was one of the principal foods connected with the pig industry; it was also used for stall-feeding. Then the first opposition came from foreign flour. American flour mills, owing to their adoption of the roller system, completely knocked out our mills, with the result that Irish mills dwindled down until they were unable to support themselves. The few mills we have remaining in Ireland are being kept alive by reason of the millers charging for their by-products far above their value. Foreign flour is being largely imported. I consider it regrettable that flour should be imported and that our own mills should remain closed. If our mills were working plenty of employment could be given. As it is, money is being taken out of the country and that means a great loss to the community generally. It would be much better if there were a tariff on imported flour; flour should not be allowed in free.
The conclusion I have come to, as a result of my experience in the country, is that there should be a tax on all manufactured articles imported. I would allow no manufactured article in free. In that way we would promote industries in our own country. Such a proposition may have a very wide effect. People may be jealous. There are some who consider that the cost of living should be reduced, that the poor man's dinner at the moment is costing a lot more than it should cost. All that is so much nonsense. It would be much better for the man to have 6d. in his pocket to buy a loaf than to have the loaf at 4d. when the man would have no money to buy it. If there was more protection more industries would be set going and more employment would result.
As Senator Bennett pointed out, this country should be given an opportunity to stand on its own legs. I well remember the statement that Ireland suffered more from the free trade policy that England applied to this country than any other country in the world. At that time England was a manufacturing country and it suited her to get all the opposition possible. Industries were only in their infancy at the time. Countries such as Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa were customers of England. England then became wholly a manufacturing country, and while they had the custom they did not fear. Ireland was solely an agricultural country, and what was life to one country was death to the other. Ireland's industry was killed by the free trade policy which England imposed here. Since then the other countries I have mentioned have become great manufacturing countries. They are now independent of England.
I spent a while in England last year, and the people there complain that they are badly hit owing to foreign competition. Nations that were once customers of theirs are now producers and are under-selling them. If you visit country towns in the Saorstát to-day you will see American hay forks, rakes, and other types of implements, and in all these matters our industries are being under-sold. For the reasons I have given I am an out and out protectionist as regards manufactured articles. That is the conclusion I have come to, and it would take a great many speeches to change my mind on that. With regard to wheat, I would allow it in free, because our country is not able to compete with other countries which are favoured with more sunshine and in which wheat of a better quality can be grown than here. Wheat-growing in this country, as experience shows, has not been a success. The wheat we produce here is not able to compete with the foreign wheat. As regards the meat industry, in which I am interested, Senators may have seen from the newspapers that a cargo of 172,000 carcases of frozen mutton and lamb arrived here in one consignment some time ago. I ask what advantage was the importation of that amount of frozen mutton and lamb to Ireland? In my opinion it simply made the country poorer than what it was. It means, too, that this country is deprived of the hides and the fat of the cattle killed in foreign countries and imported here. For all these reasons I am a protectionist. In my native place it is pitiful to see the number of mills that are now idle. Seventy or eighty years ago they were hives of industry, but now they are derelict, and there is no chance of reviving the industries carried on in them. They are now simply land-marks of what were once prosperous industries. We hear a lot of talk about the increase in the cost of living that would take place if we were to afford protection to our industries. I do not think that would occur, but I believe the contrary would be the case. I would be in favour of protection here for the purpose of giving our country a chance of competing with the manufactures of other countries. For that reason I would be in favour of putting a tax on all manufactured articles coming into the country. I congratulate the Government on the attempt that it has made to deal with this matter. Now that we have the blessings of a native Government we ought, I think, to avail of the opportunity to get the intelligent opinion of the people of the country on this question. I think, too, that the Government would be well advised to have due regard to the opinions of the people engaged in industry in this country.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and declared carried.