May I say that this abolition of the Tariff Commission is a process which I find difficult to understand. The Tariff Commission was, in fact, abolished by administrative action after the Minister came into office. I am at a loss to understand why he wants to have the seal of Parliamentary approval placed upon something which is already an accomplished fact. Nor do I think that any economy is accomplished by actually passing an Act to abolish the Tariff Commission. There may be some satisfaction in that to the type of mind which likes to have everything right and in its proper place. This abolition of the Tariff Commission might be taken to mark a difference between two policies—one which puts on tariffs after some consideration and the other which puts on tariffs with very little consideration. I can remember the first Budget of the Minister in 1932 which contained an excellent example of the kind of thing we get when no examination takes place before tariffs are imposed. A tariff on books was proposed. Some people knew a little about books and, owing to the discussion that took place that proposal was entirely withdrawn except for a tariff of a penny on novels. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the fashion in which we had him arguing last Wednesday, was most emphatic in the beginning in connection with that proposal until it was pointed out that neither an increase in production nor a large increase in revenue would result from such a tariff.
The result of abolishing the Tariff Commission is to leave the whole question of tariffs to an individual Minister and to substitute for examination what, in some instances, is nothing more than political wire pulling. Members of the Fianna Fáil Party are supposed to have considerable influence —some of them more than others—and the people who want a tariff sit down and think out what member of the Party to get at in order to have their purposes effected. We had here last Wednesday from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, an example of his point of view, and if that is the point of view which is to be substituted for the Tariff Commission point of view, we are rather in a bad way. It may be argued—and I think it is correct—that the Tariff Commission policy, if pursued to its conclusion, might be too slow, but a great many things were tariffed before this commission commenced to work at all. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was quite wrong in saying the difference was between a free-trade policy and a tariff policy. A great many things were tariffed before the commission came into operation. There are two widely divergent views about tariffs. One is that of the Deputy who said in the Dáil a long time ago—I do not know whether or not the Minister was present on the occasion—that a tariff on Rosary beads was a very serious matter, that it would increase the cost of living to the farmers and result in the downfall of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. That was going rather far. The other viewpoint is that of substituting for the Tariff Commission a helter-skelter policy of indiscriminate tariffs so that when a tariff on article "A" is doing very well a tariff is put on article "B" which endangers the tariff on "A".
I should like to refer to the attitude which the Minister for Industry and Commerce took up here on the last occasion on which we met. He said that the statements made by Senator Johnston were "cod," that the statements made by Senator Baxter were nonsense, and when his attention was drawn to some paragraph in the Banking Commission's Report he said that that paragraph arose out of the stupidity of the members of the commission. Later he said that he would like to burn some parts of the Banking Commission's Report and that they had "damned cheek anyway"—these were his words—to make certain recommendations. I should like to be allowed to protest against that method of treating people who were asked by the Government to do that particular job. A particular colleague of mine at University College served on six or seven commissions during the last 15 years without fee or reward. In some cases, to my own knowledge, he has paid other men to do his lectures for him while he was engaged at these commissions, including the Banking Commission. The reward he gets for serving this Government and the State and the previous Government and the State is to be told that he is stupid and has "damned cheek." The peculiar thing about the Minister for Industry and Commerce is that he did not tell the Minister for Agriculture his opinion of these Banking Commissioners, because the Minister for Agriculture has implored some of the very same people who served on the Banking Commission to serve on the Agricultural Commission, so that, although the Minister for Industry and Commerce discovered that they were stupid, he did not communicate that very important fact to the Minister for Agriculture. What we are asked to do here is to substitute for examination simply the kind of mentality which deals with arguments and with solid, hard work—you need not agree at all with the Banking Commission's Report to realise that a great deal of solid, hard work was put into that particular job—in the fashion which we heard last Wednesday and to give that Minister carte-blanche to impose tariffs at his own sweet will. There can be no doubt that the position we get into is that, when certain things are doing fairly well under a tariff, some other tariff comes on to endanger their success.
I really rose to protest against the treatment meted out to people who gave thier services without fee or reward to the State. I do not mind what is said about people who take part in politics. Those who go into policies must be prepared to receive hard knocks. But these men, who do not participate in policies, who are experts and who give their time without reward to the State, should not be subjected to cheap sneers under the cover of parliamentary privilege.
