Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Jul 1926

Vol. 16 No. 18

COMMITTEE OF PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES. - TARIFF COMMISSION BILL, 1926—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).

Question again proposed—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

When the Bill was before the Dáil last night, I was rising to make a few remarks, but at that stage it was thought advisable that the debate should be adjourned, and I moved accordingly. It seems necessary for me to make a few remarks on this Bill from the point of view of explaining my attitude. The Bill is brought in by the Government for the purpose of establishing a Commission to consider the question of tariffs that will be applied in future. I propose to vote for the Bill, not from any feeling of admiration for it, but as a recognition of the attitude of the Government in this matter of the application of tariffs, that any policy of tariffs requires very careful consideration.

I think it is an indication that the Government recognises the necessity of calling a halt to what has been started and to what tends to go the whole-hog in favour of protective duties all round. The Minister for Finance, in introducing this measure, indicated that the day had gone by when the question of free trade was ruled out of court altogether. When the Minister for Finance introduced the question of tariffs in connection with his Budget, he labelled those tariffs as experimental. They were never experimental. The Government was only covering its operations with the word "experiment"; but it was really the adoption by the Government of the principle of tariffs as a State policy.

From the inception of these tariffs until now, what has happened that makes the Government consider that the tariffs that we have put into operation have been so successful as to decide this policy for the country? Looking at the result of the Government's experiment I certainly am not so clear on the matter that I could endorse the statement of the Minister for Finance that a tariff policy is one which, without argument and without doubt, would be best applied to this country. Members of the Government have said, and I think rightly said, that the imposition of tariffs must, of necessity, raise the cost of living. I think that must be admitted by everybody.

Question.

Of course I would not expect the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to endorse that. That, of course, is what has raised the controversy at the present time. There is controversy amongst the Deputies not only on the Government Benches, but in every party in the House as to whether the application of whole-hog tariff arrangements is going to be for the good of the country and the welfare of the people. It is a comparatively simple matter, and yet a very complicated matter. Tariffs impose a charge on people using commodities, and the question whether the people paying those charges are getting value or not is a matter we have to face and examine when we are looking into the future.

Of course I stand in this House, I suppose, as a negligible factor, as a doctrinaire free trader, and as far as I can express my personal views they will be entirely against tariffs but, as the Government find amongst their Party there is a difference of opinion, at all events as to the extent to which tariffs are going to be helpful to industry or otherwise, so also I frankly admit to the House that amongst business people there is a difference of opinion. I will admit I could not go amongst business people and carry the policy that I believe to be best in the interests of the county—what is described in contemptuous terms as doctrinaire free trade. The reason of that, of course, is obvious. One would have to take the whole question from the atmosphere either of this House, the commercial community or the Farmers' Party to arrive at the real bearer of the burden—that is, the general consumer—and having sized up the situation in relation to what he is paying and what he will be called upon to pay, ascertain what is his opinion.

Clearly a general whole-hog tariff is in the interests of the few. Is it in the interests of the many? I will admit to the House frankly that from the point of view I might be expected to hold, and looking at it purely from the selfish point of view—the selfish point of view of the people whom I am supposed to represent—that the adoption of a whole-hog tariff policy or even a considerable extension of tariffs would not be to our detriment. I think not, but one has sometimes to look at these things apart from the purely selfish and narrow view, and I would say that as far as business men are concerned, they are really more interested in the prosperity of the country as a whole. If you can convince them of that you will have their support generally.

The discussion that has taken place on this Bill has not been as informative as one would wish. I think Deputy Magennis described the Bill as a poor one and largely eyewash—eyewash as far as the free trader and the protectionist are concerned. I think that is largely so. I think the Government are in a dilemma and they have taken the less heroic form of dealing with the matter to avoid any declaration of policy at the present stage, and perhaps wisely so. In the discussion, however, I would have wished to glean some information as regards the views of other Parties in the House. Deputy Johnson, in his criticism of the Bill, did not favour us with very much information as to what his view and the views of his Party are in this matter.

On the Bill?

On protection and free trade.

I will tell you. There are plenty of opportunities to come.

In that case I will await with expectation an expression of what Deputy Johnson really thinks of this question of tariffs.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Has the Deputy any doubt about it?

Do not ask me these questions. Of course as far as the Farmers' Party are concerned they have come out as one would expect them, as representing a very large interest in the country. I think that they have adopted the only possible policy that would promote the interests of agriculture.

Are they united?

They are not. As I said the difficulty at the present time is to find any party united on this question, because the Farmers' Party have demonstrated that they are not united in the sense that a section of them advocated the continuance of a subsidy on tobacco—a proposal that is, after all, of a protectionist nature. I think this is a question that has to go before the country sooner or later, and it will be an important question.

The same as the Old Age Pensions went before the country before they were cut.

I think the question is one which must be decided, and I welcome the Bill from the point of view that it enables the Minister to refer the clamorous demands for tariffs, irrespective of what the general merits of the case may be, to a Committee, the members of which will not be biased politically or otherwise. They will examine the merits of the case for the purpose of making some recommendation that will be helpful to us here and that will be probably helpful to the country. I think that we probably will have a continuation of pressure from the section of the House and the section of the people who believe that the salvation of the country lies in tariffs—tariffs on the basis of shutting out imports. I think Deputy Magennis went so far as to advocate that even exports in the shape of cattle and pigs to Great Britain and interchanges of commodities between Great Britain and Ireland are not for the benefit of this country. Deputy Magennis, I hope, will elaborate that, not on the lines of "Don'ts" and "Nots" but on the lines of some constructive policy as to the alternative that he will recommend the country to adopt. I think I might put his arguments down as anti-British. I hope when the new Coalition Party is established, if that is the foundation of its policy, that the support that will be given to it will be less than in the past. Personally, I view cordial relations as between ourselves and our neighbours as of very vital importance to the welfare of this country. Perhaps in that way I may be called a pro-Britisher. I do not repudiate that. I think, at all events for the present, or until Deputy Magennis or somebody else puts up an alternative policy that the interests of the two countries must continue to be mutual. There may be some policy that instead of pro-British we should be pro-American, pro-German or pro-somebody else——

What about the Bill?

These are very pertinent interruptions. The Bill, I think, if I might explain it to Deputy Mulcahy, is an attempt to regulate the present position of tariffs and the demand for tariffs. In so far as it is that I think I am perfectly in order in dealing with the whole question as broadly as I can. I did not intend to take up the time of the House to the extent I have. The real position that I got up to explain is that, notwithstanding that I have no particular admiration for the basis and the provisions of this Bill I propose to support the Government as a step in the direction of solving or trying to solve this large question on the basis of finding out ultimately what is the will of the people.

It is clear to one who has just heard Deputy Hewat that this Bill is likely to bring to its support some strange bedfellows. The Deputy has told us that he welcomes the Bill because it is likely to put an end, for the time being at any rate, to the policy of protection pursued by the present Government. I intend voting for the Bill also, for the opposite reason. I believe that the Bill is not intended to do as Deputy Hewat has told us, but on the contrary to take up again those threads laid down by the Minister for Finance in that famous Budget speech of his in which he announced that the Government would not consider further protective measures until they had again appealed to the people. In discussing this question a number of speakers have centred their attention on the standpoint of the manufacturer only. They have assumed or led themselves to assume that the only question to be considered here is that of whether we intend bettering or worsening the position of these industrialists. That line of argument I take strong exception to. I think that those who have given consideration to the matter have gone much deeper into the question than the immediate surroundings of the individual manufacturer. I take it that the question of our unemployment, that of our emigration, that of our national and international finance, and finally and no less important than any of the others, that of the ultimate unity of the country are predominant factors. Therefore in considering a matter of this kind we have to take our minds away absolutely and entirely from the personal consideration, and think not personally but nationally. I have thought nationally, and some people would say in an extreme form, on this matter quite recently. I have said that because of those conditions to which I have just referred this Government of ours would have been well advised to follow in the footsteps of many European and non-European governments in their dealings with fiscal policy since the conclusion of the war. I have urged that the condition of many of our main industries is such that the Government would have been justified in taking those bold and emphatic steps without further inquiry into the steps that had been taken by many other countries. In short, I would, without question, with the information at the disposal of the Government, have applied those measures of protection to the principle of our existing industries without any further question.

Now, the Government in its wisdom or unwisdom is not prepared to accept that course. I respect its viewpoint. I may disagree with that viewpoint, but nevertheless I must in all fairness concede to the Government that since its inception it has given a reasonable indication of its determination ultimately to secure that place for our industries which the progressive and national elements of the community desire. It has, for instance, taken over the McKenna duties. It followed up that action by introducing protection for a considerable variety of articles which we could produce ourselves. At a later stage it embarked on possibly the most momentous step that any nation could embark on, any nation of men with a big industrial viewpoint, in launching the Shannon scheme. The Shannon scheme has no other objective to my view than the promotion of industrial Ireland. Within the last few weeks we had evidence here from the Minister for Education that the condition of our technical education is such as to require elucidation and guidance from foreign experts. I take it the object of the Minister is to arm this country with the best type of education that these foreign experts can produce in order that the youth of the country shall be adequately equipped for industrial purposes. I submit, in all fairness, that these are steps which any reasonable man must confess are in the direction of producing here an industrial outlook. While I say that, I am nevertheless disappointed that such hesitancy is exhibited by the Government in coming to the rescue of industries that are rapidly declining. While I express that regret, I freely confess that within the provisions of this Bill there are elements which may and should in time produce the results that I desire.

Will the Minister point them out?

I submit that they are self-evident.

Does the Minister recognise that there is no power whatever in this Bill to inquire at any time into the results of any existing tariff?

I do not quite agree that there is not.

I say there is not, and the Minister will find that if he refers to the Bill.

I am led to believe that the Bill does give such power. In any case I am not dealing now with protected industries. If Deputy Johnson's desire is to know from me whether I believe that the Bill ought to have such power—power to vary, to add or subtract from existing protective duties—I have no hesitation in saying that it would be all the better if it had. As a matter of fact, I would extend the powers very much further. I would be prepared, for instance, to include within a Bill of this type the consideration of a subsidy, a bounty or a subvention, or the consideration of the introduction of foreign experts or the consideration of a selling machine in foreign lands or a variety of other matters, but I take it that the introduction of this Bill does not necessarily close the door against any or every one of these proposals. The Bill does this: It takes up the threads of the position laid down by the Minister for Finance two years ago when he declared that pending an appeal to the people no further consideration would be given to the imposition of tariffs on any of our industries.

Has not the Minister for Finance put a tariff on oatmeal under the Budget he introduced this year?

I believe the Minister for Finance on that occasion reserved the right to consider questions relating to agriculture. I believe I am correct in saying that. I have said the fact that the Minister has now introduced this Bill is an admission on his part that the position of many of our industries does not justify the postponement of their consideration until after the general election.

That is what the Bill is going to do—postpone it until after the general election.

We will see. Within this Bill there are undoubtedly elements which, in my view, can and should result in the imposition of tariffs in the case of all those industries which need them. You have the assurance from at least two Ministers, and I presume they are speaking for the Ministry, that free trade is not among their considerations and that they are determined to go ahead with the development of the industries of the nation.

Whether it proves detrimental or otherwise?

There is nothing detrimental in the protection of industries that are declining. Assuming that to be their standpoint, I take it that the Commission which is about to be appointed will proceed on the assumption that its fundamental duty is to recognise that these industries are declining, and that because of the fact that they are declining the Government are setting up a Commission to investigate the ways and means whereby that decline may be arrested and the tide turned. I also assume all the while that the composition of this Commission will be such as to produce an impartial verdict having in mind the national outlook. I am satisfied that the Bill contains the possibilities of fruitful results for the industries of this country, and because of that satisfaction on my part I accept the Bill, but not with enthusiasm, as it does not meet the wishes of men who think like me. I may be more advanced than a great many people in regard to this question, but I do say there are within this Bill the elements of movement in the direction of creating and fostering the industries of the nation, and because of that fact I am prepared to give the Bill a fair and square show. If I find in time that the results are not satisfactory to the national outlook I may be constrained to take other steps.

How long would you wait?

That is my own business, but I am certainly prepared to give this Bill a fair run for its money. I am prepared to await results and to act on those results. Deputy Hewat evidently concludes, without an investigation or without any proof whatever, that the imposition of tariffs must necessarily mean an increase in the cost of living. Other speakers have made like statements here. Even if the creation of industries did cost us a little I do not believe that it would worry the nation very much. But let us examine the facts as we find them. Our cost of living is very much lower to-day than it was in 1923, prior to the introduction of protection. It was 10 points higher than that of England, a free trade country. It is to-day the same number of points higher notwithstanding the fact that we have in the meantime imposed protection on practically 50 per cent. of our industries. There is no evidence there that protection has added to the cost of living. What have we done in this connection? We assume that our revenue from protection duties would amount to something like one and a quarter millions, and because of that revenue we were enabled to wipe out the import duty on tea, to reduce the import duty on sugar to a disappearing point, and we also modified certain other duties, and with the £600,000 which we had to spare after these modifications we relieved the agriculturists of the country to the extent of 1/6 or 2/- in the £ on their rates. That is the reason that there has been no increase in the cost of living. We have placed import duties on those things which we can manufacture here. We have removed them from those essentials which we do not manufacture, and the ultimate result to this country has been not an increase but a decrease in the cost of living, with an addition of at least 10,000 extra people directly employed. I am not referring in any shape or form to the other results that have accrued—to the lowering of rates, for instance.

Would the Minister say to what extent has unemployment decreased? By how many thousands are the numbers of unemployed reduced since the imposition of these tariffs, or will the Minister say whether the unemployment figure is not higher to-day than at any time before the imposition of tariffs?

The number might be still higher but for the imposition of tariffs.

I presume the number of unemployed would be 10,000 higher but for the steps that have been taken. That is the position. Not only have we reduced the cost of living but we have secured lucrative employment directly for at least 10,000 of our people. That is the first and the main result of the steps we have taken in connection with protection. These are the results that the protagonists will have to face when they try to argue that the steps the Government have taken already are not steps in the right direction. Deputy Hewat has told us that there is a very great awakening in the ranks of the people who hitherto thought in one direction. He refers to the business community.

I never expressed the opinion that there was any change of heart amongst the business people.

That is a surprise to me. I must confess I understood the Deputy to say that this problem of protection had produced new lines of thought and a good deal of misgiving. I may be wrong——

If the Minister would allow me to correct him, what I said was that there was a difference of opinion amongst business men as there is amongst members on the Government benches.

The House will be glad to learn, at any rate, that the business men of Dublin are not all in one boat in this matter. The Cumann na nGaedheal Party may have differences of opinion. It may be only a question of time, but at any rate if there are such differences it can console itself by the fact that it does not stand alone, and that this whole question of protection is becoming a live issue. It is a growing issue. I am glad to say it is an issue that is likely to swing this country back again to nationalism, and the more rapidly it swings it the better I will like it.

There is no hope for this country in the type of individual who merely says: "As long as I have enough for myself, my neighbour can go be damned." That is the position that certain people take up, that once their own particular back-yard is secure there is no need whatever to worry about their neighbour. There is an element that believes there is no need for industrial development; that believes, in fact, that the downward course of our industries should be permitted to continue; that there is no justification whatever for coming to the rescue of those industries; that, in fact, the country can get on very well without them. There is that element of opinion, but I am glad to know that it is declining. I am glad to know that this country is setting its face in the direction of creating an industrial future; that it sees, as those who advocated Home Rule in the past and those who brought about the Treaty in their time, saw, that without fiscal freedom, and without the full and liberal use of that fiscal freedom, native Government was of little use. I am glad to see that the Government has begun to review the industrial position again. I hope that its steps will be marked by vigour and that it will not cease in its efforts until every industry that needs the helping hand of the State will receive it.

I should like to congratulate the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on having made an exceptionally moderate speech.

He swallowed his Cavan speech.

I stand by the Cavan speech.

Mr. EGAN

Having regard to the fact that he is a whole-hogger in the matter of protection, he has been studiously moderate and fair in his advocacy.

The Deputy ought to congratulate the Party Whips.

Mr. EGAN

That is a matter of opinion. Personally, I thoroughly support the general principle of the Bill, because I regard it as essentially a business Bill. It is designed to collect definite and accurate information which will enable the people to make up their minds on this very vexed topic. There is no question that we have not at the moment sufficiently deep and accurate knowledge of this subject to enable the people as a whole to come to a verdict, and, consequently, I congratulate the Ministry on having introduced this Bill, which will set up the necessary machinery to collect and examine and sift carefully all the evidence in connection with the case for or against tariffs. I wish to be particularly careful to say nothing whatever on the question of tariffs— to express no advocacy of tariff reform proposals or free trade proposals. I prefer to confine myself purely and simply to the Bill.

Unfortunately, I was not able to be here yesterday, but I think I read all the speeches that were delivered as reported in the public Press, and I found a rather strange state of affairs existing. The opposition, as far as I could make out, came from three different quarters of the House. First of all, the Farmers' Party, as wholehearted free traders, opposed the Bill. Secondly, Deputy Johnson, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party and on behalf of what I think I may describe as the definite protectionist party, opposed the Bill. Finally, Deputy Professor Magennis opposed the Bill for other reasons. Here we have the position that these three oppositions unite in trying to defeat a Bill which is going to give us information on the very subject that we have under discussion. I find it very hard to follow that. If there are such great differences of opinion as there are even amongst our own Party—and there are differences of opinion; we may as well be perfectly candid about it—if you have one important Party in the House holding free trade opinions and another very important Party taking up the protectionist attitude, surely that in itself is sufficient reason for the whole of them to unite in supporting the Bill in order that the people as a whole may have sufficient evidence collected and placed before them in an ordered manner to enable them to decide what is best for the country. That, I think, is a very plain and straightforward and common-sense way, if I may say so.

Are we to understand from the Deputy that this information is only being prepared in anticipation of a general election and that nothing will be done in the meantime?

Mr. EGAN

The Bill is before the House and the Dail is asked to pass the Bill setting up the Commission to enable the country to get the information. There is nothing in the Bill about a general election; that exists in the innermost recesses of the Deputy's imagination.

From what the Deputy has said, I take it that that is the object of the Bill and that nothing will be done in the meantime.

Mr. EGAN

The object of the Bill, as I have explained, is to collect information to enable the people to form a sound opinion. I do not think I can go any further than that.

That is the Deputy's version.

Mr. EGAN

The Deputy is at liberty to take his own version—I will not quarrel about it.

The Deputy did not hear the Minister's speech yesterday.

Mr. EGAN

Deputy Johnson, according to the report of his speech in the newspapers, has complained that the Bill is being rushed and that there is not sufficient time to give it careful consideration. Prima facie that argument would appear to have a certain amount of justice in it, but as against that, the people as a whole have not yet applied any ordered thought to this great subject, and the sooner we can put information before them to enable them to form an opinion the better. I think it is a very excellent thing that we should be discussing matters of business of this sort in the Dáil and that it will be of the greatest possible value to the nation as a whole. You must remember that the vast majority of the people have not given this question any particularly deep study, and it is the duty of the Dáil to formulate legislation and to set up machinery to enable them to collect all the necessary and essential facts.

I hope the Deputy will support the amendments which are trying to embody that in the Bill so that people may form an opinion.

Mr. EGAN

The Deputy will keep an open mind about the amendments until he has an opportunity of digesting them. As Deputy Hewat has indicated, even amongst business people there are wide differences of opinion on the question of free trade and protection. On the one hand, you will get numbers of manufacturers, whose businesses are not in a progressive condition, naturally very anxious to secure tariffs in order that their businesses may become more profitable. But, if that is so, the people have a right to know what it is going to cost them. For instance, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs assured us a moment ago that 10,000 extra people were employed since those tariffs were put on. Incidentally, he does not tell us how the ten thousand are made up and he certainly does not tell us what the cost to the rest of the country is. That is one of the things which I, as a man in the street, want to know.

You cannot get it by this Bill.

Mr. EGAN

I think, with great respect, it can be got by this Bill. This Bill provides that:—"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 for the imposition, modification or renewal of a Customs duty," and so on, so that when the Commission is set up you will have a flood of applications from manufacturers all over the country. When an application comes up it will be examined and evidence will be taken upon it, and it is up to them to put up the necessary information.

I am speaking of the effect of tariffs already imposed. Where are you to get the information about them from?

Mr. EGAN

As regards that information I think there is a weakness about them in the Bill; but it can be got over in this way. A good many of the trades, already protected, will send in applications for revision, and I think there will be revision of existing tariffs and attempts to find out what the country has paid for them. I wish to be quite candid with Deputy Johnson when I say that I do personally regret there is not a more definite instruction to the proposed Commission to examine and measure the benefits or otherwise of the existing tariffs. Of course there is this to be said against that, that until these tariffs have been sufficiently long imposed it will not be possible to say what the effect of them upon the country has been. But I think it is a weakness in the Bill that there is no section providing, definitely, that the existing tariffs should come under review at such a period as may be considered sufficient for their operation to prove their worth.

I take it that probably one of the thorny problems of the proposal as contained in this Bill is the constitution of the Commission. I have no doubt a good many people object to the idea of a Civil Service Commission, but I am afraid that it must be generally recognised that it would tax all the resources of a Solomon to appoint a Commission that would give, even approximately, universal satisfaction. As a business man I certainly hold the view that it would be next to impossible to have a satisfactory Commission appointed consisting of business men only, because it is perfectly natural that business men, in the first place, have all pre-conceived notions one way or another on this question. I am afraid it would be exceedingly difficult to change that view. I hold that in proposing to appoint civil servants the Minister is proposing nearly as good a Commission as it is possible to get. After all, civil servants are men who have a great variety of work. They are not interested in business themselves as a rule. They are whole-time officers, and, furthermore, if I might say so without any particular offence to them, I think they are a fairly case-hardened lot of people because they have to put up with a great deal of criticism, censure and so forth, and personally I do not know of any class of people who would be able to express a more detached view or handle the problem in a more disinterested fashion than they would.

There is one point that I would like to question the Minister upon in connection with the proposal to appoint Civil Service Commissioners, and that is: Are they to be whole-time men upon this work or are they to carry it along with their other work? To my mind this Commission, if it is to be of any use, will have to be a whole-time job, certainly for probably a year or two. I venture to say within the very short time after the Commission is appointed there will be a whole flood of applications from industries whose owners consider that they require protection. These Commissioners will have to educate themselves generally on the whole tariff question, they will have to study the question of tariffs in other countries and they will have to go into the whole history of tariffs. I would like to have an understanding from the Minister as to whether these men are to be whole-time men and in the event of their being taken away from their present positions what provision will be made for preserving the continuity of their existing offices.

Taking the Bill as a whole I really cannot see that there can be any very serious objection to it. It is simply providing machinery for collecting information and also for turning a searchlight and microscope upon this information in order that decisions may be arrived at in the interests of the country. The sooner the people of the country as a whole become educated on this whole economic question the better. There can be no doubt about it that the people have not been focussing their thoughts upon these kinds of topics. They have been diverted, through historical and other reasons, to matters of a different sort, and it is a good sign of the times, and I welcome this Bill if only for that alone, that it will focus people's attention on economic questions. I have very good hopes for this Commission; I believe it will bring about very good results. I have been advocating a commission of this sort for a considerable time. There will be found vast numbers of people in the country who have more or less open and evenly balanced minds on this topic, but it is their due to be shown definite facts and to be given definite and accurate information sifted and brought together with care and studied at length. I think the Dáil owes that duty to the country to put the case for tariffs before them in an intelligent manner, because it is to be remembered that tariffs are not to be embarked on on the basis of a man going into a cold bath. Some men get into a cold bath; it is a matter of a shout and a splash and out like lightning. Once a country embarks upon a policy of tariffs then in fairness to the people who put money into these industries sufficient time must be given and allowed to elapse in order that the effect of the tariff may be felt. Taking the Bill as a whole, as I have said, it will be of great benefit, and it will help the country to form an opinion upon this very thorny topic.

Deputy Baxter yesterday evening in a speech that surprised me, for a good many reasons, correctly said that in his opinion there was difference in all parties as well as amongst the public outside on the great question of protection and free trade. Like Deputy Egan, I sincerely welcome these differences, even at the risk of cleavages in parties if it was only for the sole purpose of diverting the minds of the people from things that do not matter to things that do matter in the lives of the people. There appears to be no party in the House so united in its opposition to the policy of protection as the Farmers' Party. But I have very grave doubts, knowing as I do the views of the people of my constituency as to whether farmers outside the House agree with the views of the Farmers' Party on the question of protection and free trade.

About barley.

I welcome the earliest opportunity when that issue will be put to the people, and I will be rather surprised if the Farmers' Party do not get a shock on the matter when people have thought over it seriously and come to their conclusions.

Deputy Gorey referred incidentally to the question of barley. His own Party put up three candidates in the last general election in the constituency which Deputy Egan and myself have the honour to represent. One was at the bottom of the poll and the others were nearer the bottom than the top. The one thing that surprised me in the debate was that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs took a different view of the results or effects of this Bill from that taken by Deputy Egan in the speech he made. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said that the Bill intended to take up the threads laid down by the Minister for Finance in his famous Budget speech of last year. Deputy Egan said that the Bill was designed to collect accurate information to enable the country to come to a true verdict on this matter. Deputy Walsh, the senior member from Cork, from the speech he has made, assumes rightly or wrongly that when this Commission is set up it will set to work right away, bring in its recommendations and report, not its verdict, and that they would be placed before the Executive Council. The Executive Council would come to a decision. That decision, I assume, would be reported to the House and the House could either then affirm or turn it down before the next Budget and certainly before the next general election. Deputy Egan takes a different view—that it means the collecting of accurate information which is to be given from platforms to the public at the next general election.

Mr. EGAN

On a point of explanation, I did not say political platforms.

If it is to collect accurate information to give to the public, so that the public will be able to form its own conclusion, I presume that is in order that the public will be able to give a verdict on the matter and will be able to decide on the issues. Deputy Walsh also stated that the Shannon scheme had no other object than the promotion of industry in Ireland. I think he must not have been listening to the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he made that extraordinarily able speech here about six or eight months ago in support of the Shannon scheme. I think, if I remember his speech rightly, that he did not pin his faith to the development of industry in order to enable the scheme to be an economic scheme. He put his faith in the use to be made of the power by the farmers of the country. Therefore to that extent Deputy Walsh does not seem to be quite well up in his case.

Deputy Davin's information on this is as accurate as his information with regard to the advantages of tariffs to farmers.

There is one thing on which I will welcome a reply from you. When the first opportunity comes of deciding this issue in Leix and Offaly you can name your candidate and we can have a straight fight on it.

Can you show that tariffs are an advantage to farmers?

I can show that farmers have already come to a conclusion on the matter, and perhaps you will get a rude awakening in Tipperary at the next general election. I am not a whole-hogger on the question of tariffs. I made that quite clear when the Minister brought in his first Budget after the Treaty.

What is a whole-hogger?

I do not approach the question of protection from the anti-British standpoint. I realise we are, must be, and will always remain interdependent because of our nearness to one another, but I realise that nations do not trade for the love of one another any more than Deputies in this House will go down to Paddy Murphy's shop in O'Connell Street to buy a pair of shoes simply because Murphy is a decent fellow and they would like to see him getting on. I approach protection from the point of view of preserving the wealth of the country within the country by manufacturing more articles within the country and by giving additional employment to provide the needs of a growing population. That aspect of the question has been already discussed. I hope whatever cleavages are going to come about, as they will have to come about, in any of the Parties in this House, it will be on that issue, which I think is an issue which really concerns the living conditions of the people, rather than on other issues of muddled phrases and meaningless formulae that have been discussed by the people of the country for the last three or four years.

Deputy Baxter said that this Bill should not be passed pending a decision of the people of the country on the question of protection. While protection and free trade may be one of the issues at the next general election, I have very grave doubts if the electors will vote only on that particular issue. I hope they will, and that the verdict will be satisfactory to Deputy Baxter and his Party, but I have grave doubts whether it will in certain parts of the country. It is a well-known fact that various offers of self-government and home rule made by the British to the Irish elected leaders previous to the Treaty were turned down on every occasion either by the leaders or the people on the grounds that they did not contain fiscal control, that we had not got, and were not getting, in those offers of freedom and self-government, the power to control our own fiscal policy. If they were the views of nationalist Ireland then, I believe it is the view to-day. If the people of this country turned down offers of home rule or self-government, on the ground that they did not contain power to control the Customs and Excise, and if the people sought those powers it was to make the best use of them when they got them. So far as I am concerned, Deputy Johnson, in the very remarkable speech he made yesterday evening, said everything that could be said with regard to the Bill.

On the question of the constitution and powers of the Commission, I do not agree—Deputy Johnson may have a different view—that the Commission should be constituted solely of civil servants. I assume from the Minister's speech that the Executive Council have not yet finally made up their minds as to the constitution of this Commission, because he said the present intention was that the Commission should consist of civil servants, but that they did not bind themselves to that. Deputy Egan said that, in his opinion, it would be impossible to get businessmen or other men likely to be suitable outside the ranks of the Civil Service. The Government already set up Commissions to deal with questions on which there were acute political differences among parties in this House and outside this House, and they got business and professional men to act on these Commissions. An instance of that is the Liquor Commission. The Minister for Finance thought it wise to limit the number of civil servants on these Commissions to one or two. I am quite certain that it would be possible to find in the Free State a person to act as chairman outside the Civil Service who would have the confidence of the general body of the community. An appointment of that sort would create far more confidence amongst all parties—protectionists and free traders —than would the appointment of a civil servant. I will be sadly disappointed if the Minister says that he has found it impossible to discover any such suitable person. If he takes that view of their impartiality, it would be no tribute to the business or professional men of the country. I do not object to civil servants being members of this Commission on the ground of their lack of ability to deal with the questions that are to be dealt with, but I do object to civil servants being put into positions of judges in a question which, in my opinion, is a political question.

Mr. EGAN

It is a business question.

It is quite clear from the attitude adopted by Deputy Gorey's Party that it is a political question.

It may be clear to the Deputy, considering that we do not expect very much from him.

Deputy Gorey may hold whatever view he likes of me. I am here with the same authority that he is here with, and that is enough for Deputy, Gorey at any rate.

resumed the Chair.

We are all aware that applications for the imposition of import duties or tariffs have been made to the Ministry, or to whatever body was acting for the Ministry up to the present. It is well known to Deputies that people interested in the woollen industry, in the flour milling industry, in the making of agricultural machinery and in malting barley have claimed tariffs or import duties, and claims have been made. I think, in respect of bacon and, perhaps, butter. These claims, we know, have been turned down. They have been turned down by the Ministry on the recommendation of the civil servants who, if the Ministry pursues its present intention, will constitute this Commission. How can Deputies except civil servants to deal with applications which may come from the same people? How can they expect these civil servants to recommend in favour of a tariff for certain articles when they know that such a claim has already been turned down by the Ministry? I think that is a reasonable argument against this Commission being composed of civil servants, which would mean that it would be mainly composed of men who had previously advised the Government on these matters.

The Minister for Finance said that business people had no objection to disclosing their financial dealings and their financial standing to the Revenue Commissioners and to the subordinate officials charged with the work of investigating in detail the claims for refunds of income tax. That is purely an administrative question. The Minister knows perfectly well—I have myself gone into the offices of the Revenue Commissioners with people about income tax claims—that even junior civil servants in these offices have access to the information supplied in connection with claims made by the Government for tax against these people. That question is different from the proposal of the Minister in connection with this Commission.

I am quite convinced that some body has got to be set up to make a careful investigation of the facts as regards the effect of import duties upon unemployment and upon the cost of living. I candidly admit that the result of the application of whole-hog protection would mean a certain and immediate increase in the cost of living. I want to see some Commission set up which will balance the effect on the cost of living against the good results accruing to the workers by additional employment. I am sorry that the Minister for Finance has rather emphasised, from time to time, that the tariffs already imposed—apparently without very careful investigation—are experimental. I was speaking to a couple of commercial travellers on one occasion. They represented firms engaged in the making of wearing apparel on the other side. I asked if their firms were likely to set up factories in this country as a result of the duty on wearing apparel. They told me that their firms could not come to a conclusion because of the qualified statements by the Minister, and that they could not take the risk of setting up factories because the Minister might, at a subsequent date, remove the tariffs that had been imposed. It is unfortunate that the statements of the Minister should be made in that qualified way. If the statements by the Minister had been unqualified, these factories for the making of wearing apparel might have been set up. The same thing might also apply to other commodities on which duties have been imposed.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but he is perhaps unintentionally spreading an opinion for which there is no foundation. I said in the most specific terms in my last Budget statement that whatever might be done on general questions, not only would the present Government not remove or reduce the existing tariffs for a considerable period, but that even if a free trade majority were elected at the next General Election, I believed the new Government would still recognise that people having invested money on the strength of existing tariffs, were entitled to a seven or ten years' run for it.

I am glad I made the statement, which I made as a result of conversation with the people concerned, because it drew from the Minister the definite statement he has just made. Deputy Baxter, giving the considered view of the Farmers' Party, said that the imposition of tariffs would not stem the tide of emigration, and suggested as an alternative policy that 95 per cent. of the unemployed could be usefully employed in connection with rivers and main roads. Does Deputy Baxter seriously mean that the workers who could be employed in industries that might be set up as a result of tariffs imposed on imported articles would be in the same position as the people who would be employed on rivers and main roads? In other words, does he mean that permanent employment can be given to 95 per cent. of the present unemployed by the draining of rivers and the making of roads? It is quite obvious that drainage work can only be carried on for from six to nine months of the year and therefore the men employed at it will not get a full year's employment, even if they were so employed every year, and I think the same applies to the main roads. However, we have got from Deputy Baxter his alternative to the policy of protection, and I wish him luck when he submits that alternative policy to the people at the next General Election.

I am sorry that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is not present. I must say that it was with great regret that I heard his speech in support of this Bill. I have a great regard for that Minister; I know a great deal of his work and of his activities in national movements in the past, and I know something of his great energy. When I saw him raise the flag of protection in the Dáil on the Budget debate, and when I saw him going down to Cavan and speaking there as a protectionist, I felt that he was assuming the mantle of the late Arthur Griffith, and at last we had got somebody who would give the country a lead. I had great hopes for the future of the movement, and I hoped that protection would become the principal plank on the platform of at least one political party. But after listening to the Minister's speech to-day I am afraid that all these hopes are shattered and that we will have to look elsewhere for a lead in the matter of protection.

I am opposed to this Bill. I believe that it is built on wrong foundations. As one who has been a protectionist since I first took an interest in the matter, and as one who looked forward to the time when, if we ever had a Parliament possessing the powers that this Dáil possesses, I felt that one of the first things we would do would be to protect anything we could manufacture or produce ourselves. In every food-producing country, in Denmark, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere where the policy of protection has been adopted, the first thing done was that the policy of protection was accepted, and then tariff boards were put up for the purpose of inquiring into the question of what industries should have protection. When I heard it declared last evening and to-day that this Bill is an admission by the Executive Council that they are abandoning free trade, or, in other words, that the Bill is a step towards protection, I took quite a different view, as I felt that instead of adopting the policy of protection, we were putting up a Tariff Commission to decide really what industries should be protected, that protection would be an exception and that the normal policy of the State would be free trade. That is my view of the matter and that is why I am so much opposed to the Bill.

I am sorry I cannot agree with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that the Commission will be bound, so to speak, to accept the principle of protection. I take quite the contrary view and I consider that instead of doing any good for protection the Commission will do a great deal of harm. As the matter has been debated from practically every angle, I do not propose to follow the various speakers and to go into the different points that have been raised, though I certainly do regret that we have not more time, especially for the Committee Stage, to see if it were possible to amend the Bill. But when we have heard so much talk about the cost of living I would like to put forward one point that I am very much up against at the moment, that while it is claimed that protection may increase the cost of living—though I do not admit it—we experience the other side of the question all over the country; we have the difficulty of the huge amount of unemployment, and one of the crushing burdens on the rates is the amount of money spent on home help in practically every county in the Saorstát. We have also to consider the amount spent by the State on unemployment benefit and on doles and grants to give employment, and I think that if that huge amount of money could be saved and local and general taxation thereby reduced, even if there was any increase in the cost of living, which I doubt, the saving would certainly make up for it. As a protectionist I am quite convinced that this Tariff Commission will not do anything from our point of view. In fact, I am quite satisfied in my own mind that it will be harmful to the community.

I listened with a good deal of interest to the speech of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and I must admit that it was quite a reasonable and fair speech from one who has definitely proclaimed himself to be a whole-hog protectionist. I could agree with a considerable amount of what he said. There was only one mistake which he made, and that was that he was talking completely outside the scope of the Bill. He claimed for it certain provisions which are not in the Bill. He claimed that under the Bill it will be possible to do certain things which the Bill gives no indication of the possibility of doing, and, so far as the Minister's speech bordered on the Bill at all, it was really completely outside the scope of it. His speech might properly be within a Bill which those of us who are prepared to accept a protectionist policy, on certain conditions, would support. As I say, it was completely outside the scope of the present Bill, although the Minister gave the Bill his benediction. Yesterday evening, the Minister for Justice painted quite a captivating picture of the way in which the Commission would do its work. It would, according to him, have time to consider the matter, would go into it in detail, and consider it thoroughly. With all these things one could agree. With the idea of giving the Commission plenty of time one could agree, but if the Commission is to be given all that time to consider the matter carefully, surely the Dáil, which has to provide the machinery for the Commission, should get adequate time to deal with that machinery. It is not getting that time. The Bill has been rushed on the Dáil, which is being asked to make up its mind at short notice on an important Bill of this kind. If it does so it will be reducing legislation in this country to burlesque.

The Bill ought to be withdrawn and adequate opportunity ought to be provided to enable it to be discussed calmly, reasonably, and with a knowledge of what we are doing. The real hand of the drafters of the Bill was shown by the omission which Deputy Johnson pointed out yesterday. Presumably, they took the South African parallel. They said "We will take certain phases of it, adopt these, and put them into our Bill." All the phases, however, of the South African measure which would be acceptable to the Dáil and to the Labour Party, namely, provisions preventing the exploitation of the public by trusts and combines, and ensuring that a State-protected industry would not pay sweated wages, were omitted. I am curious to know why they were omitted. Surely, the standard of profits made by a State-protected industry is a matter that should be inquired into by the commission. Surely, a tariff commission should see that an industry which got State protection should not be allowed to make exorbitant profits at the cost of such protection, and if the nation as a whole agreed that it was desirable to bear certain burdens and to suffer certain inconveniences, so that an industry should survive, it is reasonable to expect that the workers in that industry should be protected from what I believe is an all-too-frequent inclination of employers in this country, namely, the payment of sweated wages.

If the Bill as drafted satisfies protectionists in this country it shows the protectionists within the Government Party in a very strange role and light indeed, inasmuch as while they demand State protection for industry, they refuse to concede State protection for the workers, and they will go into the Division Lobby, as they did on the Shop Hours Bill, and vote for denying the workers of the State that protection which they demand for manufacturers' bank balances. There is no protection in this Bill for the commodity-consuming public. There is no protection for people who dedicate their lives to industry. The whole question from the national standpoint has been reduced to the level of private interests. Under this Bill it rests with private interests to say whether they are going to seek tariffs in their own interest. Nobody but those concerned with those interests will have any scope under the Bill. Because of these shortcomings, I believe the Bill should be rejected. I am one of those who are prepared to support the policy of protection on certain prescribed conditions in the interests of the national well-being, and I believe that a tariff commission should be set up to examine every proposal for protection, but a Tariff Bill which does not provide for protecting the public and protecting the workers engaged in the industry from sweated rates of wages and from bad conditions of labour, is a Bill which will not commend itself to me. It is quite evident to anyone who has studied the attitude of the Government Party, especially that of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, for a few months on this question that the Bill is designed, not to permit protection being given to industries that need it from the national standpoint, but is designed to shelve protection and to do nothing more than hoodwink the Protectionist Party within the Government.

Sitting suspended at 6.20 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.,AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.

I did not intend to intervene in this discussion in any way whatsoever. But the debate has taken a turn that I do not think we can afford to let pass. A certain note has been struck in the discussion on this Bill, and really the note that has been struck is as to the merits of protection versus free trade more than the merits of this particular Bill. Expression has been given to words that by implication would convey the idea or would seem to convey the idea that anybody who does not think in a certain groove is anti-national and anti-progressive. One Deputy used the words "we of a national and progressive mind." I think it is time to get rid of these fallacies. I claim that we on these benches are as national and progressive as the Deputies or Ministers in any part of the House who have been talking in that strain.

This Bill, as was said yesterday evening, is just throwing dust in the eyes of the public. If this measure in its operation would remove that dust out of the eyes of the public—that dust that politicians of one description and another are trying to put there under the guise of this economic question— I would be inclined to vote for the Bill. If it did that I would be almost inclined to cut myself adrift from the views of my Party and vote for this Bill. I will go further and say that if I thought that this Bill was going to insure that the evidence given at this Commission would be daily published as it was taken down so that the public would have all the evidence for and against and would have an opportunity of reading that evidence in the Press day after day, I would be inclined to vote for it. I say that because I hold the view as an individual that the public are entitled to all the information for and against that can be given to it on this question. It is they who have to decide this question eventually, and it is their right to be told all that can be said for and against it. The public are put into a false position in being left to the eloquence of every politician and every thimble-rigger in the country who has an interest either in his own business or an interest in keeping himself to the front in the public life of the country. It is the duty of the Dáil and of the people who claim to govern this country to give, on this vital economic question, all the information they can give, fairly and squarely to the public, and give the public an opportunity of making up their minds on this question. This is a very vital question for the country. Some Deputy here this evening said it was a political question—that this question of free trade versus protection is a political question. I will not make any comment at all on that.

The Deputy does not understand what politics are, then.

To my mind it is not a political question. It is not a political question to the people of this country. It is a vital economic question. To my mind it carries quite a different meaning from the word "politics."

The Deputy cannot say that it does not bear a political aspect.

The Deputy is entitled to say what he chooses, but he is not entitled to claim that I should accept the meaning of the terms in the same way as he does. As I understand the meaning of words this question is far apart from politics. We have heard of people through the country getting up on platforms and preaching the anti-British and the ultra-patriotic viewpoint. To my mind that is politics as I understand the term, but when you come down to a question of vital importance to the life of the people, to the bread and butter of the people, surely we ought to put a question like this into the category of economics and get away altogether from the political label. Great play has been made on platforms about keeping the people in the country. We have been told that in the last seventy years the population has decreased from 8,000,000 to 4,500,000. That is in the natural order of things. A whole lot of water has run under the bridges of the country in the last seventy years. Any old country with a healthy population is bound to have a surplus population. All the countries of Europe have had their emigrants and they have their emigrants and their proportion is as great as ours. If Deputies think that we are going to restore by a system of tariffs this population of 8,000,000, and that these people will live in hovels on the hill-sides with no land, or an acre or two or three acres of land, all I can say is that they are preaching something which they do not believe and which they themselves know is impossible. There is a document here that has been sent me. I will just quote from the last paragraph:—"Let us say at once that we want tariffs for the progress of the nation and in order to give employment to the unemployed and to stay the increasing evil of emigration of the best of our population, to assist in taking the heavy burden of supporting the idle of our race and so reducing taxation and increasing the chance of industrial prosperity in the Saorstát." That is a most laudable sentiment. If that was the only object of this or any other association it would be very commendable. But that is not the whole issue, and that is not the whole aim of these men. That is not their object. Nor is it the object of any of the advocates who stand up to preach it.

We have heard a lot of talk about the rapidly declining industries. Now, until this question of tariffs became an active question, two or three years ago, we heard very little about declining industries. These industries were pulling along. I cannot say in what condition. But the moment a breath about tariffs was mooted we had these people all coming up to Dublin and asking the Deputies to introduce them to somebody who had influence to put their case before the Government for protection and assistance. It was the case of the fly congregating about the honey. The fly is a pretty good judge. He is not congregating and buzzing away where the honey is not. We hear a whole lot about these declining industries now. I do not think that if this question of tariffs were not on the tapis we would hear so much about it. I believe a lot of it is made up for the occasion, and that the people who talk about the progress of the nation and that sort of thing are only talking about their own business. That is their first concern, the most immediate object in their mind. I do not blame them; it is quite natural.

We have been told about the disaster that we are going to meet, because of our attitude, in Leix and Offaly and other counties. We are prepared to meet it, and whether we go up or down in Leix and Offaly it will not cost us a night's sleep. We have not favoured a tariff on barely for the simple reason that we think it would be no good. I would like to have all the evidence that can be given for and against the imposition of tariffs published. All the evidence taken before this Commission should be published so that the people of Leix and Offaly and other places in the Saorstát will have the dust that has been thrown in their eyes cleared out. That will give them an opportunity of getting some of the dust out.

Will the Deputy say if the case has not been already prejudiced by consideration and rejection on the part of the Executive Council? Can the Deputy tell us if the case has not been prejudiced on the recommendations of the very men who will form this Tariff Commission?

I think Deputy Gorey might ask that question of Deputy Davin, because Deputy Davin may know what nobody else knows.

I may be wrong, but I have an idea at the back of my head that Deputy Davin's objection to this Bill is because he is anxious to prevent the dust being taken out of the eyes of the people of Leix and Offaly.

Mr. EGAN

There is no dust there.

It is eye-wash.

Quite so, it is eye-wash.

Eye-wash is a totally different matter from dust.

It will wash out the dust.

I recognise that this is a very important point. Maybe I am at fault, but I look upon this as an attempt to put a lid on the Government pot. We all know the pot is boiling at the moment. We can almost see the foam and hear the sizzling.

Are you pleased with that?

I look upon this as an attempt to put the lid on the Government pot. It is an effort to keep the foam out of sight and the noise of the sizzling out of our ears.

What about the Farmers' pot?

Probably we have our own domestic pot. There is a possibility that we have.

There is no lid on it.

Well, it may console the Minister if I tell him that at the moment there is no lid. If it wants a lid later on I will consult the Minister in regard to the matter. That is what I really believe, but the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has a different idea. According to him, this Commission is being set up with the object of giving effect to the policy of a general tariff; that is the Minister's hope. If he is not satisfied with the work of this Commission he says he will alter his mind and take a new line. Deputy Egan has a different viewpoint. He believes this is going to be a fair sifting of the position and it will give the public a fair chance of weighing the evidence for and against. I am inclined to take Deputy Egan's view.

If I were to accept the view of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that this was a definite step to impose a general tariff without rhyme or reason and without a case being made for or against, I should take a very much more serious view of this Bill than I do. As I said, I am inclined to accept Deputy Egan's view. I think it is the correct view. I think the public ought to get all the information they can. I want to know from the Minister if it is the intention, not as news but as a matter of Government policy, that all the evidence given for and against each particular article that a tariff is demanded for will be published in the Press so that the public will have an opportunity of judging the effect of such tariffs, even though such publication is at the Government expense? The public has a right to know what evidence is given in connection with articles that tariffs are sought for. If that promise were forthcoming, I freely confess it would go a long way towards altering my viewpoint as to how I will vote.

A good deal has been made about the number of people employed in the Saorstát since the introduction of these tariffs. The round figure of ten thousand has been mentioned. Without a little more information than we have I would not be prepared to accept that. We have not got enough information and we have not got sufficiently reliable statistics. The Minister for Industry and Commerce may be able to give us the exact figures, but can those figures be traced directly to the imposition of tariffs without any other contributory cause? If the Minister, in defending his Bill, will give a promise something in the nature of what I have suggested, I think the public will be very thankful. If he does, the public will be only getting what is their absolute right in regard to this very important matter.

If you are going to ask the public to judge this big question, a question that has never been so acute in this country either in this generation or the last— there has been very little thought given to it before—they should get every information, and no big step should be taken without the case being ascertained for and against. Big steps have already been taken, and I blame the Government for taking them. They had no right to take them in a good many instances. True, it was put down as an experiment, and as an experiment we have not been inclined to quarrel with it too much. At the same time I think it is wrong. The public have a right to know, and unless you are prepared to educate the public and give them a chance of coming to a decision, you are not treating them fairly. If they are to make a decision give them all the information you possibly can, and it is their right to have it.

The Bill which is before the House and which we have heard debated at some length yesterday and again to-day, is to my mind one that should not have the support of the Dáil any more than the policy of condemnation of development in this country will have the support of the people at a later date. Those who are looking forward to the building up of this nation will not be led away by men to-day who proclaim a doctrine, for which to my mind they have got no authority. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs got no authority or mandate for whole-hog protection from the people in the country or any party in the Dáil. Numbers of people in this country and numbers of members of the Dáil are not whole-hog protectionists, and never were. We believe in our fiscal powers being used judiciously, when found that it is expedient to do so, and when necessary to use them, and that they can be used with advantage, but we do not believe in proclaiming a doctrine of all-round protection and then waiting to consider the possibilities of any committee inquiring into that policy, and seeing whether these tariffs should be applied or not or whether our fiscal powers should be used or not.

On a point of order, does the Deputy say that in any of my utterances I used the word "whole-hog"?

The Minister used the words "100 per cent." Is that whole-hog?

The Minister may not quite like the word "wholehog." We have not got many hogs in this country. Unfortunately we export a large amount of them. I did not mean that as a term of disrespect. I am not in the habit of using that type of language in this House. What I meant to say was that he was an out-and-out protectionist. Perhaps that is a nicer way of expressing myself. I am afraid I took bad lessons lately: in other words, I am a bit of a copyist in some of my expressions. The Minister has proclaimed himself to the country as an out-and-out protectionist, and the speech we have heard this afternoon is not the speech of an out-and-out protectionist. All the same we are out for protection when it is found necessary. Dealing with this Commission, and with those who are to be appointed to it, we find that the Minister for Finance, on yesterday, said that as the Bill was drawn proposals for tariffs would be considered only when interested parties made application to the Commission; when people already engaged in an industry or people proposing to engage in industry made application. Has the Minister any mandate from the manufacturers of this country to set up this Tariff Commission? Has he got a commission from them? Has he got a mandate from them? Did he get any mandate from the people? Why then did he do it? Were they consulted? They were not consulted. Who are to act as arbiters in this matter? Civil servants. Civil servants are not allowed to sit on a jury to try their own fellow-countrymen, but civil servants may be placed in this position. We want to know who is to question their findings and whether the Minister is to be responsible for what these civil servants do.

I presume the Minister is going to adopt the findings of these civil servants who are to be the arbiters in this matter as the policy of himself and the Executive Government of the future. The question is: are their findings going to be his policy? If they are out against protection or if they favour protection in very exceptional circumstances, is the Minister going to adopt their findings as his policy and put it before the country? At present I say the Government has no policy as regards this question of protection. The Minister last evening further went on to say that neither was it proposed that bodies interested in protection, industrial development or any sort of propagandist organisation, should be able to bring proposals before the Commission. In other words, those who are to go before the Commission are to be manufacturers. No trade union has the right to go before them representing the workers of the country. No farmers' association or body of farmers has a right to go before them, even those who claim that a majority of them might be free traders. They have no authority according to this Bill to go before the Commission. They cannot go forward as a body, according to the statement of the Minister.

I did not say that.

I only take the Minister's statement made in the House last evening. This is the policy of those who are engaged——

Would the Deputy read Section 2?

I rather prefer to take the Minister's statement made last evening as reported in the Press If the Press has misquoted the Minister I presume that the scope of this inquiry will be sufficiently large, that those who are engaged in the development of industry in this country will be free to go forward and give evidence and to place statements before this Commission, as to whether certain industries should be supported or not or whether our powers should be used to give them a tariff. There are many people in the country, at present, besides manufacturers, who have an interest in the future of the country, and numbers of business men will be able to make suggestions and give evidence before such a Committee as to what would be possible and what might be necessary for the future of the country. According to the statement of the Minister, neither a trade union, representatives of a farmers' association, nor any other body has got the right to appear before this Commission. It is simply a question of a small group of manufacturers. Are you likely to find a group of manufacturers in this country going before this tribunal constituted of men who have no intimate knowledge of business matters? Deputy Egan refers to them as being possibly people of very broad minds. You may have men of very broad minds or you may have even very learned professors, but as business men, nine times out of ten, they have not been quite a success.

I say it should be possible, as in England to get an impartial tribunal to deal with this matter. We could have three representatives chosen from business men, even members of the Farmers' Party or even a strong representation of Labour who would be men of independent minds and who would be prepared to act conscientiously from the evidence placed before them. Civil servants are to a certain extent bound. We quite understand that. Certainly they are not the people to consider a matter of this importance. You would not ask ordinary members of the Dáil to go on the bench and do the work of your judges. They would not have the necessary knowledge of law and would not be in a position to pass judgment as would judges of education and experience. I think the appointment of these three civil servants means the shelving of the whole policy of protection. We have heard a great many statements as to the question of the cost of living. We have heard it stated that anything that is done in the nature of protecting an industry increases the cost of living. We have heard figures in this House of what the net result was, quite regardless of the 10,000 men who are stated to have been employed. We are quite aware that if you take the total returns that have been supplied, you will find that while the cost of living has increased in connection with one or two protected industries it has gone down in the case of others.

I have here a copy of the Report of the Worsted Committee appointed by the Board of Trade in England in connection with the safeguarding of industries. Before that committee evidence was given by the chairman of the London Employers' Association and Wholesale Mantle and Costume Manufacturers' Federation. The report states:—

"Further evidence was given in support of the applicants' case by a large clothing manufacturer to the effect that it was very difficult to say whether a duty would increase the price of clothes. He stated that shops sell at regular fixed prices and the incidence of increased cost might be circumvented by substituting cheaper linings or a different type of material. He did not consider that employment in the making-up industry would be affected. The chairman of the Bradford Merchants' Association apprehended no decrease of employment in the merchanting trade, and he suggested that the duty need not necessarily affect the price to the public, as the distributors might be content with less profit since the advantage in buying cheaply is not always handed to the public. He mentioned that wholesale garment-makers all work to fixed prices and demand cloth at a certain price. It was his opinion that the larger production in Bradford as a result of the duty would cheapen the cost. Another wholesaler appearing on behalf of the applicants stated that the duty would not be prejudicial, but indirectly beneficial to the industry.

The weight of evidence indicated that employment in other industries would not be adversely affected, but that the imposition of a duty should enable Bradford manufacturers to reduce their costs, and that competition already existing between home manufacturers would be stimulated, thereby counter-acting any incentive to raise prices."

A statement was made this evening I think, by Deputy Norton, in connection with the question of the cost of labour. There is no reason why the Government should not have introduced into their Bill a clause dealing with profiteering. Why should not the three members of the Commission be able to inquire into this matter? In Grattan's Parliament they introduced a Bill to prevent profiteering, with the result that in six months profiteering was at an end, and the prosperity of the country went on by leaps and bounds. In anything that is being done for the development of industry, it should be also possible to prevent profiteering. We are told that England is almost entirely free trade and that protection would not be to our advantage. We heard Deputy Hewat dealing with the question of pro-British and pro-Irish interests. The people of every country look to the development of their own country first. There is no reason why there should be antagonism to any other country in developing Ireland. There has been a great deal of talk about our market in England and it has been said that anything in the nature of protection would interfere with that market. There is no man who has ever been in trade outside this country but who is quite well aware of the fact that an Englishman will buy his goods in the cheapest market, quite regardless of what the political or religious views of the seller are. He works on business lines and nothing else. Perhaps those who are talking so much about the possibility of interfering with our trade with England will recollect that fact, that people buy in the most suitable markets and that while you have produce from this country that will suit England she will buy it and that while England has produce that we cannot turn out here Ireland will be her market; we will be her nearest market. Their object is to get a good market and we are pretty well going to do the same.

There is a question of protection for industries in England. I noticed in a speech in the British House of Commons on the 8th June that reference was made to it by one of the members. He said:

"I was referring to the leader of the hon. baronet who has just spoken. If I may now depart from these historical controversies to the question of Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which it is now proposed to continue, I should like to draw attention to the fact that no less than 6,000 articles are included in Part I of the Act. We are, therefore, discussing a very considerable measure of Protection under this clause."

They discussed no less than 6,000 articles under that clause, and if that is not protection, what is? They are free trade in England only because they want cheap food for their workers and because their merchants want return cargoes for their vessels which carry their exports to other countries. Protection has meant prosperity for every nation that has used it. Whether it is Canada, America, Australia or South Africa, they all have been prosperous under protection, and England is steadily going towards protection. Those who are against it I am afraid are going to remain very far behind. We want development in this country; we want employment for our people. We once had double our present population and we had employment for our people, and there is no reason why we should not have it again. There is no reason why the people of Ireland cannot produce what is necessary for themselves. I do not believe in this Bill. I do not believe in having the Commission confined to three men chosen from the Civil Service. They may be able men, but they are not, in my opinion, the proper adjudicators in a matter of this kind. According to the statement of the Minister for Finance the evidence is going to be circumscribed. Only a certain set of manufacturers will be at liberty to go before the Commission and to give evidence. I say that other bodies in this country have an equal right to be heard. The representatives of Labour have a right to be heard and the representatives of the farmers have a right to go before the Commission and give evidence. If you are to have no one but manufacturers, I think it is hopeless. I do not want anyone to consider that I am speaking on behalf of those manufacturers in this country who want to be spoon-fed. I am entirely opposed to that. I believe that some of these people want protection, simply because they manage their business badly, and they know that if protection came along other people would engage in similar industries and put them out of business. I think the sooner that type of person is put out of business the better. I think the sooner we get foreign capital, foreign intelligence and foreign experience in these industries, the better.

What about Sinn Fein?

Some of these people are saying that they do not want protection because they are not able to handle their industries, and they fear that those who are at present dumping stuff will come along and start industries in the country if we have protection. I, for one, do not want to give protection to a badly managed business. If we are to have an inquiry, let us have an impartial tribunal. We should be capable of procuring an impartial tribunal, and not be tied down to civil servants. You could get such men to form that Commission. If you are to have them at all get honest men who would act honestly, who would sift all the evidence for and against that would come before them. Then, I think, their report would be worth considering.

Are we to understand that there is a distinction being drawn between honest men on the one hand and civil servants on the other?

No. I made it quite clear that the honesty and intelligence of these men to do their work were undoubted. I did not impeach them in any way at all as regards their honesty, sincerity or ability, but I did say that it was men who have been engaged in business and commerce all their lives who should have been placed on the Commission and not civil servants who are practically tied down and who, as I said already, are not even allowed to act on a jury to try their own fellow-countrymen.

Before starting to speak on the subject of protection I would like to make a profession of faith and give an expression of approval. I believe in protection for the industries of this country. In happier circumstances, I would advocate a more complete form of protection than I am prepared to entertain at present. In the present depressed condition of affairs in Ireland the only industry which, to my mind, we can consider from the point of view of a protective tariff, is the industry which will yield a return for that tariff within a reasonably short space of time. Under better conditions we might let ourselves loose more and be prepared to protect industries which, after a considerable lapse of time, would give a corresponding advantage. But, I think, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at present, the proper way in which to approach the tariff question is the way in which it is being approached by the setting up of this Commission. With regard to the constitution of the Commission, many people have quarrelled with the fact that it is to be composed of civil servants; that they presumably, as creatures of the Ministry, will not be in a position to form an impartial view, but I question if they are being asked to form any view. My understanding of the functions of this Commission is that it is to elucidate the facts bearing on the conditions in various trades, that it is to hear and note evidence, that it is to present that evidence to the public eye so that he who runs may read: so that members of the public, as well as members of this House, can know just as well as the Minister for Finance, to whom I presume the report of the Commission will be presented, what the circumstances are in any trade. We can then draw our own conclusions from the evidence which has been submitted.

Does the Deputy deny that this Commission must make recommendations?

I do, except in so far as the recommendation is implied in the evidence which the Commission gets. A recommendation may be obvious from the evidence, but as far as I can understand from the discussion that has taken place here the Commission will have no functions to recommend either for or against. I was rather amused last night by the attitude of the Farmers' Party on this question of protection. The moment this Bill was introduced for the purpose of setting up a Commission of Inquiry, which it is hoped will throw some light on this very complex question, Deputy Heffernan seemed to take up the attitude of one of those lower forms of animal life, armed with long and extremely sensitive tentacles which, approaching a hard object without knowing whether it is to expect attack or not, immediately curls itself up and assumes an attitude of defence. In support of that statement, I would like to refer Deputies to some arguments which the Deputy used. He spoke about the Minister's pledge. The statement made by the Minister, as far as I understand it, was that he would not introduce any more tariffs before the next election. That was a perfectly free statement and was not made as a compromise to any party, a statement to which he was in no way bound if he found that circumstances later on called for a revision of his decision. The Deputy also said that there would be no organised opposition to claims for protective tariffs: that the people who would normally be expected to oppose claims for protective tariffs had no resources and no organisation. Deputies can form their own opinion on that, and do not need me to educate them on it. The Deputy also said that the people did not understand this question, that they had a Free Trade Press which would not publish a single argument in favour of protection. What chance, I ask, have they to get to understand it except by the investigation of a Commission such as is now proposed?

Another argument put forward from the Farmers' benches was that the Government had no mandate for protection. Had the Government, I ask, a mandate to vote an additional sum of £600,000 towards the agricultural grant this year, and yet it did it? Deputy Baxter, with a certain amount of unctiousness which we have on occasion observed from the Farmers' benches, informed us that the agricultural industry was carrying all the people of this country on its back, and he added that the people of this country were not going to put their hands in their pockets to subsidise and keep alive the decaying industries of this country. My examination of the finances of this country leads me to say this: that all our surplus revenue goes to subsidise one industry, namely, agriculture. I do not say that that is not as it should be, but I think that the Farmer Deputies should keep that in mind and should not grudge support to other industries. In my opinion there is no section of the community which is more likely to derive, in the long run, greater benefits from the introduction of protection than the farming community. It would give them a large home market. If Farmer Deputies would think for a moment on the position of transport in this country, on the difficulty there is in making the railways pay, on the difficulty that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs experiences in making the Post Office a paying proposition— if they were to read the debates that took place in this House when the Estimate for the Post Office was under consideration—they would see that the reason alleged for the difficulty of making the Post Office a paying proposition, is the sparseness of the population of this country. The same thing applies to the railways. An increased population in this country would mean lower transport rates and a cheaper Post Office. It would provide a market for our produce and an outlet for the employment of the sons and daughters of the small farmers of the country. The Farmer Deputies in the Dáil apparently do not take that view. I question whether the farmers throughout the country take that view or not. Deputy Davin has assured us that they do not and I am rather inclined to back Deputy Davin's view in that respect. I have a lurking idea that some of the small farmers of this country can see rather farther than the point of their noses.

I wish to correct a statement or rather a mis-statement made by Deputy D'Alton. He stated that countries that have adopted protection are invariably prosperous. Such is not the case at all. Spain is not prosperous, and neither is Italy, Portugal or France. They are all more or less bankrupt, and I have an idea that a free trade country is guaranteeing them and paying their debts.

I want to make a correction. The Deputy suggests that it was because these countries had adopted protection that they were not prosperous. Is it because they use protection that they have lost their prosperity?

As regards another protectionist country that we have heard a lot about here, particularly from Deputies on the Labour benches—I refer to Australia—never in my life have I seen more people marching about unemployed than I witnessed in that country. I saw people going about there drinking water to keep them from starving.

What year was that?

I could not tell.

I do not intend to delay the House long, and I hope to do my best to avoid any discussion of the famous principles of protection of which we have heard so much. I am in favour of this Bill and have been always in favour since this protection question came up of the institution of a tariff commission to deal with protection. I consider that it is a logical sequence to the adoption of any policy of protection that you should have some commission which would investigate the conditions under which that protection would be given, and investigate not only the conditions under which future protection might be given but the working out of protection from time to time. It seems to me, in spite of what Deputy Johnson said, that both of these results can be obtained by this Bill. It provides that not only the future effects of tariffs will be considered, but that also the question of the modification or renewal of the custom duty will be considered.

On whose application?

On the application of those engaged in the industry, and that does not prevent a discussion of modification and renewal being considered.

Unless applied for by the people concerned, that is to say, the manufacturers, or the actual beneficiaries and not the public, the Ministry, or anybody else.

Deputy Johnson made the point a short time ago in an interruption while the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was speaking, that this Commission would not be able to discuss the question of reimposition or modification of tariffs at all. There may be a limited power to do so, but the power is there. It can discuss modification or the reimposition of tariffs according to the terms of reference.

May I ask if the Deputy will clear up this point: by what power in this Bill will the Commission be able to inquire into the results of any tariffs we put on last year if the people concerned, the manufacturers themselves, do not apply?

Does the Deputy wish the Commission should have that power?

I want the Commission to have power to inquire into the results of tariffs.

That they should have power to inquire into these things?

In any case, the point I made holds good. It may be limited to people engaged in an industry, and no one has more right to ask for an inquiry into the effects of tariffs than the people engaged in an industry. This question of confining to manufacturers the right to put a case before the Commission is one that has caused me a great deal of thought. I have personally come to the conclusion that there does not seem to be any different way. What this Commission has to do is to sift evidence. It has not to go into the general question of protection versus free trade, and I do not see how anybody except those engaged in an industry, or who have gone so far as to be about to engage in an industry, can be expected to give any valuable evidence before a Commission of this kind. From that point of view it seems to me that the Bill goes as far as it can be expected to go. In regard to this question it has always seemed to me that the only logical alternative to having some kind of Commission to discuss the details of the imposition of tariffs would be the imposition of a general customs duty all round. A revenue duty is about the only type of duty that should be imposed without consideration of the particular details of particular industries. Even if you have such all round customs duty, and I have not heard any party or individual in the House proposing such a thing, you come to the point of discussing the organisation, and the improvement or development of industries. You will have to come down to the point whether you will need a Commission of this kind, because it is impossible for those who are engaged in politics, who are engaged in debates, who are engaged in political controversies to give such time and consideration to this matter as it should get.

While allowing for the discussion of details of this kind the Bill provides that the initiative in imposing tariffs will always rest with the Government of the country, and not only that but the Government has the power and the right if it likes to go outside the Commission and impose tariffs without any reference to the Commission at all. If I personally were drafting the Bill I might be prepared to word it somewhat differently, and might be prepared to make the introductory part of it somewhat more elaborate in favour of protection. For instance, I might be prepared to make some semi-political declarations in connection with it, but as far as the machinery set up is concerned I cannot see in what way it could be improved for the purposes of a tariff commission. For that reason, I am in favour of the Bill as making a very considerable step in advance. The Government has gone far not only for the protection and development of industry but for the putting of this whole question of protection on an intelligent and scientific basis. There are questions, of course, in connection with the personnel of the Commission about which there is room for a good deal of difference of opinion. I should like to see the possibility of appointing non-civil servants to this Commission explored very carefully. But in that connection again, I am perfectly prepared to admit that it may not be found possible to get non-civil servants who would be fit or proper persons to appoint on a Commission like this. At the same time I would impress on the Government that the world is not altogether divided into two groups of people, impeccable civil servants and manufacturers with a tendency to dishonesty, and that it might be possible if sufficient care were taken to find at least a chairman from outside the ranks of the Civil Service in whom the country would have confidence, and who would be able to give the time and consideration along with civil servants if necessary to the various matters that would come before this Commission. If such a chairman as that could be found it would be of the greatest possible advantage to the work which the Bill sets out to do. It would produce a far better atmosphere for the good working of the Bill, it would give much greater confidence to everybody that the question of tariffs would get fair consideration from the Commission, and it would remove the danger that civil servants may be mixed up in political controversy in connection with this matter. I am one of those who hold that there is a great deal of politics in this whole question. It is a question as to which, as a matter of fact, politicians have to come to political conclusions on economic grounds, and it would be rather a pity that civil servants should find themselves involved in any way—if it were at all possible to avoid it—in a controversy over political conclusions arrived at on economic grounds.

As I said, I should like to put some trimmings on this Bill if I were the author of it. I should like to preface it with a statement in favour of the principle of protection. I should like, if possible—I doubt very much if it is possible—to try and make provision by which other than manufacturers would be able to put a case before the Commission. As I said, I doubt very much if any others, except those who are engaged, or about to engage, in industry and have experience of it, are fit to give evidence before a commission of this kind or to produce evidence such as any self-respecting commission would spend much time in considering. For that reason I am prepared to support the Bill as it stands. While, as I say, I should like to add a little here and there to them. I believe its terms of reference are still wide enough to allow great progress in this whole matter of reviving industry and to allow everybody who has really a vital interest in industry to put a fair case, not only before the Government, but before the people, and to allow the people and the Government to come to sane and clear conclusions on the matter afterwards.

I am strongly in favour of protection; I am almost in favour even of a general revenue tariff, but I am prepared to admit that the people have not considered this matter in any thorough way. I am prepared to admit, as every sane man must be prepared to admit, that the people and politicians in this country, or in any other country, are not capable of coming to conclusions about matters of technical business such as will be brought before this Commission, are not capable of coming to any good conclusions in the circumstances which surround political controversy about matters like the size of a tariff, for instance, or like the effect which a tariff put on one industry may have upon any other industry. There are many matters like that, that it is very difficult for any lay man, whether a Cabinet Minister or not, to come to a clear conclusion on, and it is, therefore, better, not so much that conclusions should be come to, but that, at any rate, evidence should be marshalled and facts should be got together on subjects like that by a body of people who will not have any political responsibility for the results of what they are doing. For that reason I hope that those engaged in industry will take this Bill as a bona fide attempt to put the question of tariffs on a fair and sound basis, and that we will not find people running away from this Commission and condemning it unheard without looking into its possibilities.

I should like to see all the possibilities that there are in this Bill and in this Commission for the development of industry explored and made use of. If it is found afterwards that there are further possibilities, or if it is found that there is anything in the terms of reference or the personnel of the Commission which is inimicable and unfair to the development of industry, I for one will be prepared to admit that and to demand an amendment of the Bill or to demand some change in the personnel of the Commission. In principle, however, I think it is a good thing to have a Commission of this kind and that, in practice, when it comes to hard facts, it will be very difficult for anybody to produce a better Commission than we are likely to get under the Bill.

I should like to comment on some curious aspects of the debate that we have been listening to for the last few days. Unfortunately, I was not present for the whole debate, but from what I did hear of it, it was very striking to me, at any rate, that you had, perhaps, one of the most curious alliances that have ever existed in this Dáil—an alliance between Deputy Johnson and Deputy Heffernan.

And Deputy Magennis.

I was not here when he was speaking.

You left out the professors.

In any case I think the inclusion of Deputy Magennis would only reinforce my point—it would only make it "curiouser and curiouser." You have an alliance between a man who proclaims on every possible opportunity that he is a free trader, and a man who, I do not think, has ever declared that he was by any means a whole-hog protectionist—if I may use Deputy Dalton's discarded phrase. It struck me, in view of the fact that the signatories to this alliance, so to speak, had such very distinct principles, that one should seek somewhat further than the principles on which they opened the discussion for the reason of their alliance. Of course, the reason of their alliance is perfectly obvious to anybody—a political reason.

The same reason as the introduction of the Bill.

It is a matter of political tactics. The Bill is introduced as an honest attempt——

To reconcile the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

That is why it disappoints so many people.

As one who has been identified to some extent with the demand for protection, I support the Bill as an honest attempt to deal with the question. Deputy Heffernan's free trade views may be very wide and elaborate, but I know that there is one kind of free trade that Deputy Heffernan believes in, and that the majority of the Party to which he belongs believe in, that is free trade in the results of Government measures passed by the Dáil. I would be almost willing to prophesy, if the Bill is a success, that you will find Deputy Heffernan, and other members of his Party, who are opposed to this Bill—I cannot say anything to Deputy Gorey on this occasion because I am not quite sure whether he is supporting or opposing the Bill—but you will find Deputy Heffernan and those who joined with him in opposing the Bill, going down the country organising little industries and claiming protection, in friendly cooperation with the Farmers' Party, and claiming, also, that they above all the other Parties in the Dail, were the authors and sponsors of this Bill.

No such claim was made.

I wonder is the Deputy aware that members of his Party claim credit for things for which credit is not due to them?

I am afraid that is an argument, not an explanation.

I wonder if the Deputy has ever heard any claim in connection with the Waterford Meat Factory?

All human beings have a tendency to claim credit where it is not due, but in this particular matter of the benefits which flow from legislative measures passed by the Dáil the Farmers' Party have that tendency to a somewhat larger extent, perhaps, than any other Party. I should like, also, to make a reference to the attitude that Deputy Johnson has adopted on this measure. I have personally never heard Deputy Johnson make what I might call a clear-cut declaration, an unequivocal declaration for protection in this House, unaccompanied by reservations of different kinds. I think it is only fair that his attitude in regard to this measure should be adverted to in the light of his other utterances in regard to this question.

What about your own leaders?

Deputy Johnson suggests, and tries to have it accepted, that he is a protectionist without making any definitely protectionist speeches. Now, when a measure like this for the solidification and definition of protection comes before this House, the support Deputy Johnson gives it is to try to damage the position of those who have been engaged sincerely and honestly in pushing the protectionist cause forward both inside and outside the House. I should like to say that I, for one, have a deeper belief and a stronger faith in the principles of protection than would induce me to descend to tactics of that kind. I do not think it is right, when a measure like this is introduced, which everybody agrees is of such vital importance to the industries of this country, that an attempt should be made to derive political capital out of it in such a way that the cause for which it is introduced may be damaged and may be retarded by such action.

For whatever reason, I cannot say, there seems to be a very antagonistic feeling against the farmers.

By some of the professors.

I venture to say the opposition coming from these benches, to this particular Bill, has been very fair and very mild and based upon sound principles as compared with the rhetoric of a speech lasting for two hours. Not one word has been said about that, while we have had to submit to the gibes and the jeers of youthful politicians who during the time that we were in stress and struggle were——

Under the bed!

Yes, under the bed, or confined to the protection of a neighbouring country. They cannot see anything unfair in these attacks, considering the position which exists to-day, when the resources of this country depend upon the farming industry, without anything else or without any other industry in the country able and capable of sustaining itself in the foreign markets. No other industry in this country is able to stand up to competition. We have not asked for protection and we do not demand protection. We only demand what those able, as we are, to compete and sell in the world's markets might expect, namely, that the manufacturing arm in this country should also show a tendency in the same direction. I do not say that we stand against helping industry. It is well that the House should understand that our main reliance is on one industry, and that if your strong whole-hog protection policy is to be put in force, that industry will go like the rest, and you will go with it.

Professions of faith were made, but the professions of faith were not followed by any explanation. This is faith in an untried experiment. It is not a profession of faith: it is a profession of foolishness. Let us be candid. If the Bill means only an examination and thorough investigation into the problems of industry, then we have no notion of standing in the way. It is on the ground that this Bill brings with it the acceptance of the theory of protection for everything, and the Minister for Finance knows this, that we put forward our objection.

Adversity makes strange bedfellows and that is the reason you find us ranged with our colleagues on our left and on our right. We are standing against the wall. We are doing our best to live and we will not tolerate and cannot tolerate anything that will make it more difficult for us to carry on. Is that not a reasonable proposition? I agree that between extreme whole-hoggers, on the one side, and doctrinaire free traders on the other, there is a way by which we can help ourselves and help the country. Deputy Tierney is against unfair pressure on industry brought about by tariffs. Therefore he is in favour of our attitude.

I did not say that.

You said you would like to see that any unfair pressure was brought to bear upon the Ministry that it should be rectified. But if the chief industry which is so large that you cannot see it is subject both to unfair competition and pressure it is not to be heard. Farming is not an industry nor a manufacture and, therefore, it is not to be heard. It is so great and immense that it is carrying the State upon its back but then we are told it is getting subsidies. The subsidies to farming in this country are nothing. Compared with other countries we are only in the halfpenny place in that connection. We never get anything but our rights and we have not got our rights yet. When we get our rights we will be in the position of giving ourselves what we demand and what we require. It is wrong to take credit for Bills passed in this House by the Government. It is wrong to say the Cumann na nGaedheal Party has done everything. The Farmers' Party has done its share in whatever beneficial legislation has taken place in connection with our farming industry and we do take credit for the fact that not only have we aided legislation passed here but we made the people who are behind us accept when it was even of a coercive nature and where it would not have been accepted but for us. I want the country and the House to understand, that our attitude is that of people bearing their burdens and facing the enemy, we have maintained our place in the foreign market on our merits which is more than can be said for other industries except, of course, Jacob's biscuits and Guinness's porter. If, however, the other industries in the country face facts in that way the farmers will not be behind time in giving them a helping hand.

I may say at the outset that I am very glad to know that the leaders of what I might call the hundred per cent. protectionist party—Professor Tierney and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs have become reconciled again with their Party. I was amazed when I heard Professor Tierney talking about the tacties of Deputy Johnson on this Bill. Deputy Tierney is a very good judge of what he describes as the low tacties of Deputy Johnson, but I do not think it is necessary to go into that matter any further.

I do not think I used the word "low."

The word was not used, because I was listening very carefully to that part of the debate.

I withdraw it, and with your permission, sir, I will substitute the word "high" if it suits the Deputy better.

It is not a question of what suits me, but Deputy Johnson.

I wonder how the Deputy reconciles his very halting apology for the Government on this Bill this evening, as compared with his one hundred per cent. protectionist speech last April. I suggest to Deputy Tierney that between now and the next reading of this Bill, if we are going to have another reading of this Bill, he might read the speech which he delivered on protection last April, to see how it fits in with what is contained in this Bill. Let us be frank about the matter. I am sure Deputy Tierney and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs could make 100 per cent. better speech against this Bill than they made in favour of it. I have no doubt whatever that were it not for the fact that Deputy Tierney, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and their colleagues who call themselves protectionists were afraid of an election they would speak and vote against the Bill. That is the position as I see it. I want to pay a tribute to the Government Party for their discipline and the way in which they have been able to wangle, if I might use the word——

If the Minister for Justice has any objection to the word I will substitute the word "handled"—the way in wmen they have handled the rebellious members of their Party. I am glad they have been able to dissipate all the fears of disruption which were foreshadowed in this morning's "Independent" by the political correspondent. I am glad to know that even if the division were taken last night there was no fear the Government would be beaten. I should like to know the real mind of the protectionists in the Government Party on this matter. It would be very interesting to hear the speeches made at the party meeting when they were discussing this Bill and to compare them with the speeches made in this House.

To get away for the moment from the Government Party and to come to a more popular object—the Farmers' Party—Deputy Gorey made a statement this evening which, I must say, surprised me, coming even from Deputy Gorey. I am surprised that none of the subsequent speakers referred to it. When speaking of the present tide of emigration from this country, Deputy Gorey made a statement, that that was in the natural order of things. It is the natural order of things that we should have 30,000 of the best of our young men and women clearing out of this country to try and earn a livelihood in other countries where protection is in force; it is in the natural order of things that these young men and women who are forced to clear out and who should be able to earn their money on the land——

I make a present of the fact to the Deputy that he is able to regulate the natural order of things.

If Deputy Gorey is not able to make an intelligent observation, he ought to remain silent. If the statement to the effect that the emigration that has taken place in the last three or four years is in the natural order of things gives the official outlook of the Farmers' Party in this country, there is very little hope in the country from the point of view of the Farmers' Party. The Deputy suggested it was necessary that there should be a reduction in the population and that this country was unable under any system that might be devised to maintain and find employment for a population greater than what we have at the moment.

I said nothing of the sort. I contrasted the population today with that at the peak point in '49 or '50 when we had eight millions and I said—I adhere to the statement— that this country would not be capable of carrying that population, even though all our industries were developed and protected.

Deputy Gorey has modified what he has stated.

I have not, but the Deputy mis-quotes me always.

I admit that it is not easy to quote the Deputy. We have heard here this evening, particularly from Deputy Wilson, that this country is absolutely dependent upon agriculture. That is all right, but Deputy Wilson and his party by their attitude on this matter are insisting that this country will be dependent on agriculture and are refusing to allow us to have any other industry in this country.

We are doing what you are doing—that is, opposing the Bill.

Yes, but for quite a different reason. Deputy Wilson and Deputy Gorey and some other Farmer Deputies and business men even on the Government Benches are prepared to vote against any suggestion of protection for industries in this country but they are prepared to vote in favour of protection for agriculture. What is the £600,000 of a double Agricultural Grant but a form of protection?

It is not protection.

It is a subsidy.

What about the sugar subsidy?

Did we ask for it?

What about the sugar beet subsidy, as Deputy Davin suggested. Is that protection?

I would like to get an interjection made clear. Did I understand Deputy Heffernan to say that he did not ask for the beet subsidy?

The Deputy put it in the form of a question: "Did we ask for it?"

I understand that the Farmers' Party were taking full credit for having got it. I am against the Bill, because I do not believe the Government are at all sincere in setting up this Commission. I believe it is just a dodge to shelve the whole question until after the election. I am convinced of that.

Is not that the best thing to do?

Why does not the Deputy vote for the Bill, if it is the right thing to do? The people who are sincerely in favour of the Bill—I do not include the people who are professing to be in favour of it—are out-and-out free traders. A number of 100-percent protectionists have been cajoled not only into voting for it but even trying to speak in favour of it. I am going to vote against it, because I believe it is an attempt to deceive the House and to deceive the country on this question of protection. Perhaps, on that ground, Deputy Tierney will find an explanation of what he spoke of as a "curious alliance." It is an alliance against the deception of the Government Party.

We have been listening to a succession of lectures on alleged family differences in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. Charges have been made that members of that Party have been brought to see the light, not because of their belief in the efficacy of this Bill for the purpose for which it was devised, but through fear of a General Election. I wonder does it occur to any member of the House who made charges of this kind that even in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party there are men who think more of the general interest of their country than of their own future at a General Election or of small matters arising out of a division of opinion as to the extent to which a measure will go. Nevertheless, it is possible that there are men of that type in this Party, much maligned as it is. I wonder sometimes, when I hear frequent rejoicings about the divisions that occur in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, if all the other Parties are quite a happy family, or if they are so devoid of independent thought that they never differ from one another.

The question of tariffs has exercised the minds of politicians and statesmen in every country. It is a very good thing it is exercising the minds of political parties in this country even to the extent of the excellent debate— interesting and sometimes amusing— that we have had during the last couple of days. Again, our Party is sometimes charged, as in the case of Deputy Magennis, with lack of independence of thought. We are told that in the Party there is no thought other than that inspired from the Ministerial benches. I think that somewhere between the two the truth may be found. Deputy Morrissey has spoken of those who are in favour of protection and who are being forced, by one means or other, to vote in favour of this Bill. I am in favour of protection and I am in favour of it not as a sentimentalist. I have been engaged in business all my life and I am convinced that if the future of this country is not to be entirely agricultural, a change can only be effected by a judicious application of tariffs. I confess that there are points in the Bill that I would like to see changed, but as it goes in the direction I desire, I am in favour of it and I propose to vote for it.

On one or two points I should like to comment. I object to the attitude that might be sought to be implied in this Bill, that commercial men and manufacturers consider only their own personal interest and profit when dealing with the creation of industry. I have been recently in touch with a body of men who put up £10,000 to re-establish an industry in this city. I can assure the Dáil that the majority of those men were not at all primarily concerned with the making of profits but that there was some little national impulse behind the effort. I should not like to think that the Minister for Finance or the Executive Council took that attitude towards manufacturers because it would not be a proper attitude. The Executive have always given generous and broad consideration to the claims of the agricultural community, as is right and proper, agriculture being at the moment the staple industry of this country. But there has always been a range of economic life in the nation and I think their attitude should be as generous in this case as in the case of the farming community. For that reason, I feel that the onus of having a tariff placed upon an industry should not lie entirely with those who are engaged in it or who propose to engage in it. I would like to see the functions of the Commission extended, so that it might initiate inquiries into certain industries either established in the country or suitable to the country's requirements. I should like to see the clause in the Bill referring to the payment of a certain sum of money, deleted, not so much for the sake of the few pounds involved as for the sake of the implication that an interested section only is concerned in this matter. My outlook is a broader one. I think the whole future of the country, the whole future of the population which agriculture cannot absorb, is dependent on this matter. It is a matter of broad national interest and not a matter of interest to sections only. There are other matters referred to by Deputies which I presume will be dealt with when the Bill is going through Committee. Speaking as a protectionist, convinced of the necessity and rightness of that policy for this country, I have no hesitation in saying I will vote for this Bill.

Nearly all those who have spoken in opposition to the Bill have been answered by others who spoke in opposition to the Bill. Deputy Johnson said he thought this Bill was going to do harm to both sides in the controversy. If he means that the results of the operation of the Bill will be agreeable neither to the whole-hog protectionists nor to the doctrinaire free trader, I am inclined to agree with him and I hope it will be so. When we get away from the political argument against the Bill—the argument arising from disappointment, because there is not a big split in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party—we find that the arguments are mostly based on the desire to have a different kind of Commission altogether, charged with different functions. Some people have said that this Commission should investigate the results of existing tariffs. It might be desirable that there should be a Commission even now to investigate the results of existing tariffs, but I do not quite agree. I think that the existing tariffs have been too short a time in operation and that any attempt to appraise their efficacy now would really give misleading results. For my part, I certainly think that until the existing tariffs have been a year or two years more in operation I should not attempt to say what the effect has been, because, for the first year of any tariff, it has practically no results. Sometimes big stocks have been laid in and the effect of the tariff does not begin to be felt at all. Even when big stocks have not been laid in or even when they have been exhausted, there are difficulties in getting going for the purpose of increased production. There are difficulties in erecting buildings, in installing plant and in getting capital, and it is very difficult to see how a tariff is going to operate for three or four years. I would not be inclined to conduct any very serious investigation into tariffs before some period like that. But in any case, that is entirely different from the problem that we wish to deal with. Something like a year ago I said that we did not propose to proceed further with tariffs on manufactured articles until after a general election. Before I made that statement we had had an enormous number of applications. We found that we were being pressed on all sides for additional tariffs and our general view was that the whole matter had not been sufficiently considered by the public at large, that we had not had sufficient experience of the tariffs that had been imposed and that in many cases employers were pressing for tariffs who would have been very much better engaged in attending to their business and carrying on their industries. We thought that on the whole the best thing for the country and for manufacturers themselves was to call a halt, to let the country see, at any rate to some extent, as the result of experience, how tariffs would operate, and to give us an opportunity of considering what was the best machinery to deal further with the tariff problem. But after we had made that declaration of policy, we were told, told with great vehemence, and, in certain cases, with a great deal of convincingness, that there were industries which could not wait for two years, which, if we did not do something, would go out of existence, and that if we waited until after a general election we, or our successors, would have to deal with a position in which the industries had gone, the plant had, perhaps, been scrapped and the workers had been scattered.

We did not want to let cases like that lie over. It might be that on full consideration of some such cases we would decide that the amount of protection that would be necessary to save the industry would not be justified and that we ought to let it go. On the other hand, an industry that was in danger might be such that it ought to be saved when it could be saved at comparatively small cost and when the cost would be very well worth while. It was when these arguments were put up to us, when we were convinced that not in all cases could we safely wait over the two years, that we began to elaborate the idea of a tariff commission, a commission which would not leave us in the position of yielding to or resisting the clamour and pressure of manufacturers, but which would enable us to examine the case that could be made, so that if there were industries that needed protection, that would benefit by protection, that would be in great danger of going out of existence if protection were not granted, we could deal with them on their merits. That feeling, that desire, is the real genesis of this Bill. The object of this Bill is not to inquire into the general merits of free trade or protection, or to get the theory discussed in any way; it is not to inquire into the effects of existing tariffs; it is not to enable people who want wholehog protection to come in and make cases for industries with which they are not concerned. It is a Bill to enable us to get a full examination of the cases of industries which claim protection, and particularly the industries which allege that they would be in grave danger of destruction within a brief period if protection were not granted to them.

I have indicated that proposals like the sugar beet proposal might arise which would be outside the scope of this Bill and of the ordinary operations of a commission such as that proposed, and I have said that I believe those proposals should be dealt with by some ad hoc body and by means of a special investigation. This proposed Commission is to make a thorough investigation of claims for tariffs such as have been made to the Ministry for the past year and a half or two years, such as in some cases we felt had not merits, such as those about which we could not make up our minds, such as those which we were rather inclined to accept, but still felt that there was substantial doubt about. It might be that if this Commission had been working for a year or two we would want to add other functions to it or we might set up other bodies or other machinery to discharge other functions. We have a special and an urgent reason for setting up this particular machinery to do the kind of work that I have indicated. Deputies have asked—Deputy Gorey has asked most clearly—whether all the evidence will be published in the Press. It would not be possible to have that. If you paid for it as an advertisement you would have too much of it in, and I do not think it would be read. Besides, it would be extremely costly.

The policy may be a great deal more costly.

Taking it broadly— I do not say that this always applies— the kind of news that a paper does not think worth inserting as news would not be read by many people if it were inserted otherwise. It might be read by a few, but the few who would read the kind of material that a newspaper would regard as not having much news value would read it if they got it in a White Paper. It is proposed that the proceedings of the Commission shall be published.

Will there be a selection of documents to be published, because the documents will be the evidence?

Yes. What I say about the publication of evidence applies to documents as well as to oral evidence. There is just one exception to that, what I mentioned yesterday, that where a firm gives confidential evidence which might show its position and damage its credit, that evidence will not be published.

Private banking affairs?

No; there are things which a firm could not have published without running grave risks. If a firm were to show in evidence, for instance, that its stability was very doubtful, the result would be that immediately it became public it would ruin its credit and that it could not carry on— that would not be published. What we would have published would be a statement in general terms what the effect of the confidential evidence was. If a number of firms gave evidence showing that they had been incurring heavy losses, and were in a condition bordering on insolvency, the Commission would have to report that the evidence given in regard to certain firms showed that they had serious losses and that their condition was one of great difficulty. It would have to state in general terms the effect of the private evidence. Beyond that, all evidence would be published, both documents and oral evidence. The intention of the Government, and I am sure it will be carried out by the Commission, would be that, so far as possible, the evidence should be published, that is, that the confidential stamp should be put on as little evidence as possible, consistent with dealing fairly with firms whose proposals and whose affairs would come up for investigation. A Deputy stated that bodies like trade unions could not come before the Tariff Commission. As a matter of fact they could. There is no restriction against any bodies interested in giving evidence before the Commission.

If they are engaged in the business?

Yes, or have been engaged.

Or propose to be engaged?

"When considering any applications referred to it as aforesaid the Commission shall hear every person who desires so to be heard and appears to the Commission to be substantially representative of persons, trades, or interests who would or might reasonably be expected to be affected by the granting or refusing in whole or in part of the concession asked for in such application and shall receive and consider any evidence tendered by such persons." That would mean representatives of workers in an industry, or who had been in an industry, and perhaps even representatives of those who might be employed.

I think that the Minister will remember that the Deputy was referring to applications from trade unions.

The Deputy may have thought that he was referring to such applications. He was not. So far as evidence is concerned, anybody interested can give evidence if he has evidence to give, but applications must come from the people who are proposing to engage in the industry. I think we have hundreds, we certainly have scores, of such applications already, and it is primarily to deal with those applications, which we have, that the Commission is being set up. This Commission is not being set up to probe matters, to travel over the whole field, and to look out for things to inquire into. This Commission will act judicially in so far as the putting together of evidence and setting out the facts, are concerned. It is to hear a case that will be made that the Commission is being set up. The cases can be made only by those who are interested. You do not set up a court to go out and look for disputes among the people. Your court is established and people, with material to bring before it, go to it and present their case. We believe that the most satisfactory way of dealing with ordinary tariff proposals will be to have them made by those who are interested. Somebody must take responsibility for making the case. Otherwise you could not have the type of investigation which we desire, and which we think will be most satisfactory. If you have not the people who are actually engaged in the industry making a case for the protection of that industry, you are going to get into generalities and into a wide discussion on economic principles. We do not think that that would be fruitful. We do not think that such discussions would tend to put us in a position to deal intelligently and satisfactorily with the practical problems which will come up to us, the problem in the case of each industry, of imposing or refusing a tariff. I do not think that I need at all deal with the question of mandate. We certainly had as much mandate for the imposition of protective tariffs as for any other things we did.

Did the Minister not give a promise and make a statement in his Budget speech?

I made a statement as to policy.

That no tariffs were to be introduced pending a general election?

Quite, but there has been no general election since that. That was a statement of policy. It was no pledge, but a statement of intention and policy. That was what we proposed to do, but we did not make any bargain with anybody.

It was not even a scrap of paper.

You did not mean it.

There ought to be more regard for statements of Ministers.

No pledge was given. No pledge was intended and nobody thought it was a pledge.

What form should a pledge take?

It was a statement of policy, and if things arise which indicate that a policy must be modified, then it would be a most unintelligent and a most irresponsible thing to do to refuse to modify that policy because that had been stated already in clear terms.

This is very important. If on a discussion on the Budget proposals a case is put up, from any party, and a Minister gives an official reply, making a definite statement, is not attention to be given to that statement? Is not that a pledge, or what is it to be accepted as?

That is not describing the circumstances as they were when the statement was made.

In the Budget debate a question arose as to tariffs, and in reply the Minister stated that there would be no more tariffs introduced pending an election. If that is not a pledge and an official statement of the Minister what is it?

Unfortunately there will be no more tariffs. There is no doubt the country wants them.

The statement was made in the Minister's speech on the Budget, not to a reply.

In any case Deputy Corish has given a reply. I do not know whether it will satisfy the Deputy or not.

It does not satisfy anyone.

The Deputy will be satisfied at the next election as to whether the people want protection or not.

He will not. It is a case of the curate and the parish priest.

The circumstances which lead us to feel that some modification of that policy might be necessary were those that I have already mentioned. In the case of some industries it was put to us with great force and vehemence and with some convincingness that if we waited for two years to consider and deal with their cases it might be too late. Investigation may prove that there are not such industries and investigation may prove that there are no industries which could not wait. In that case if there are no industries which are likely to collapse because protection is not granted, I certainly would hesitate very much before I would go any further with the policy of protection. I have no desire to go ahead of the feeling of the country. The country has not been able to express itself very clearly on the matter. Above all things, I have no desire to commit the country to a general tariff policy before the electors have had an opportunity of pronouncing on the matter. On the other hand, if there are industries which are going to collapse, or are going to be so seriously prejudiced that it is equivalent to collapse, by the conditions that exist if some help is not given within the next two years, then I am prepared to consider the cases of these industries on their merits.

Deputy Gorey said a thing with which I agree in part. He said we did not hear anything of these industries which were failing and which were in danger of collapsing before protection was first introduced, but that we have heard of them since. There is no doubt the introduction of protection and the hope that certain industrialists have of getting protection has led them to make a poor mouth.

The Minister does not accept the statements in this paper here.

On the other hand, the entire economic conditions in regard to industry, just as in regard to other matters, have been upset as a result of the European War and the catastrophic results of that war. Industries which could carry on quite well before the war and which seemed to have prospects of gradual expansion and increased prosperity, find that their markets are lost and that they are reduced to conditions of the greatest difficulty. The results of this upsetting of the economic conditions have been coming home only within the last two or three years, or at any rate, coming home to their full extent, and while it is true to say that there are industries which plead necessity simply because they believe they have something to get, there are also industries which are genuine in pleading exceptional difficulties and in pleading that the conditions under which they operated have so changed that it may be impossible for them to carry on without help. I am certainly convinced that in this matter of protection you have, as the Minister for Justice said, to let every herring hang by its own tail. You have to consider each case on its merits; you have to try to get at the facts with regard to an industry, and having got at the facts as fully as they can be got at, to come to a decision with regard to it.

It is certainly a short-sighted view to consider only one aspect of a question. It is a short-sighted view to say merely because agriculture is depressed that therefore nothing must be done for industry, that we must not weigh up the expenditure and the result, that we must consider simply and solely what it may cost without having any regard to the possible results of our action. I think that we cannot satisfactorily deal with our economic problems by taking a doctrinaire view from either side.

We feel very strongly that serious burdens must not be imposed on agriculture. We feel that it cannot bear the handicap of any appreciable additional burden, but we have to see what would be the results even to agriculture of a further industrial collapse. It would not be good. People engaged in agriculture would suffer, just as the people who are directly engaged in the industries would suffer. I submit that the information that will be made available to all parties and all citizens of the country as a result of the operations of this measure will enable us to deal with many questions that will come before us in relation to tariffs on the merits, free from propagandist influences and from any doctrinaire considerations.

I did not want to interrupt the Minister. I want this point to be made clear. Is the Minister withdrawing the statement of policy enunciated by him in his Budget speech in 1925 when he said that no further tariffs would be imposed pending a general election? Is he standing by that statement?

Will the Minister tell us if, in view of the discussion in regard to the constitution of the Commission, he will reconsider the question of endeavouring to secure the services of a business or professional man who has not been actively associated with the protection or free trade movements as a competent chairman?

With regard to Deputy Baxter's question, I will be able to answer that when some investigations have been made by this Commission.

Are you standing by the statement you made?

Yes, until I see what information is forthcoming. With regard to Deputy Davin's statement, I am not of opinion that it is necessary to look for such a chairman. I do not preclude the possibility, and when we come to consider the personnel, who is available, and what the balance of the Commission will be from the point of view of experience and outlook, we will decide on the question of a chairman. I certainly would not propose that we should have a business chairman or regard a business chairman as at all superior to a Civil Service chairman.

Or a professional chairman?

I see no advantage that any of these people could have over a civil servant. It will be a matter of extreme difficulty to get a business man who will give the time and the energy, and who will be impartial and disinterested, to act on such a Commission. You could get interested people easily. Perhaps you could get people of leisure who would not give a great deal of service to the Commission. When the Bill has been passed the whole question of personnel will be considered, but I do not propose to give any pledges in regard to it.

Question put—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 29.

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Burca.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ni Choileáin Bean Uí
  • Dhrisceóil.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Parthalán O Conchubhair.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • William Hewat.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Seán Mac Curtain.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabhain.
  • Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Seán Príomhdhall.
  • Liam Thrift.

Níl

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • David Hall.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Patrick McKenna.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • William Norton.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Pádraic O Máille.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Tierney. Níl: Deputies Heffernan and Morrissey.
Question declared carried.

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

To-morrow.

If the Committee Stage is fixed for to-morrow, those who take the opposite view to that held by the Government will have very little opportunity of sending in amendments. I think it is not reasonable to expect Deputies to table amendments if the Committee Stage is fixed for to-morrow. No Party will have an opportunity of submitting amendments if that is done.

I think there certainly was a sort of agreement that if the Second Stage were put off to Wednesday the Committee Stage might be taken on Friday. When that was fixed it was indicated to Deputies that they might prepare and send in their amendments before the Second Reading was actually through.

What does the Minister mean by a sort of agreement? With whom was that agreement made?

As far as the Labour Party is concerned, it was made between myself and Deputy Johnson.

So far as the Farmers' Party are concerned, the Bill is against their principles and they do not care whether or not it is amended. It cannot be amended in any way that would suit their view.

Would the Minister consider the advisability of postponing the Committee Stage until after the adjournment?

Until after which adjournment?

Until after the recess.

Oh, no. I would like to relieve the political correspondent of the "Independent," who is apparently in very bad form.

I have heard complaints that we would not hear any more about this until after the General Election. Who is trying to put it off now? The Minister wants to push it.

I regret that I was not here when the Minister made a statement in reference to the Committee Stage. I am told that he said that I agreed to the Committee Stage being taken to-morrow.

You did not object.

If the Minister will look at the Official Report of what occurred when this matter was being discussed—just about the last column of the report—he will see that inferentially, at least, I raised a very distinct objection.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated very definitely that Deputy Johnson agreed with him not to raise any objection whatever to taking the Committee Stage to-morrow.

Do not put in the word "whatever."

He said that Deputy Johnson agreed with him to take the Committee Stage to-morrow.

That was my impression.

I do not know what time the Minister is speaking of, but after the Bill had been circulated and we saw what was in it, we distinctly objected and raised the question of the shortness of time.

I am speaking of the day on which the Bill was put into the hands of Deputies. I think that was Thursday. I was speaking to Deputy Baxter, who had talked of the Second Reading and the date of the Second Reading. I then went over to see Deputy Johnson in his place, where he is now sitting, and put it to him that I had made a suggestion to Deputy Baxter that the Second Reading was really not the point that he might be aiming at, that it was the Committee Stage, and if the Committee Stage were aimed at and were set down for to-morrow, that there might be some consideration given then to a later date for Second Reading. I asked Deputy Johnson his opinion of that, and he said he would agree. That is my recollection. It was not that he did not object, but that he would agree. I will add that I think his further remarks were: "It is not a Bill to which, I think, we will be putting in any great number of amendments."

The Minister is referring to a conversation that he had immediately after the tea adjournment?

This was long before tea, I think.

It was probably before I read the Bill.

It was, I think. It was circulated from the Lobby outside at the time.

It was the reading of the Bill that astounded me and the Minister will remember and certainly will recognise, if he will get the official report of what occurred just before the adjournment—when I had a chance, more or less, of glancing over the terms of the Bill—that I raised objections at once as to the period that was going to be allowed.

I seem to recollect that Deputy Johnson indicated that very little time was given and that he objected to the lateness of the introduction of the Bill, but following the conversation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce with Deputy Baxter, Deputy Johnson sent me a note. As a result, when we came to fix the Second Reading Stage, I said that I thought that there had been an agreement— whether it was an agreement that would cover all the Parties in the House or not, I do not know—that if the Second Reading were taken on Wednesday, the Committee Stage might be taken on Friday. I do not remember if Deputy Johnson said anything in reply to that.

I cannot remember all the circumstances. I am not raising an objection to taking the Committee Stage to-morrow, so far as I am personally concerned, because all my amendments have been put in and, so far as I am concerned, the time does not matter, but there are later Stages than the Committee Stage.

I am prepared to agree, in view of the fact that a considerable number of amendments have been put in, that the Report Stage be taken next week, no attempt will be made to go further than the Committee Stage to-morrow.

I raised the matter publicly in the Dáil and intimated that we were not going to face the Second Reading on Tuesday without seeing the Bill and having given it consideration. The position we are confronted with— Deputy Wilson has represented our point of view—is that we cannot accept the principle contained in the Bill as stated by the Minister. Atleast, so far as we can see, no amendments could alter the principle contained in it and we are raising no objection to it on the Committee Stage. I recognise that Deputy Johnson is in an entirely different position, but if we are to be asked to-morrow to pass judgment on Deputy Johnson's amendments which we have not yet seen, is it fair? That is the point.

They have not been circulated yet.

No; Deputy Johnson's amendments have been in my hands for some time and certain alterations have been made in some of them from the point of view of order. They were not circulated because the Bill had not passed its Second Reading, and it would have been somewhat irregular to circulate amendments for a Committee Stage which had not been fixed. These particular amendments of Deputy Johnson, and some amendments of the Minister which are also in can be circulated in the morning with the Order Paper. That is as far as I can go in the matter.

I think Deputy McCullough and Deputy Tierney would like to send in amendments and they would require time.

Most likely.

I think it is desirable for the proper consideration of the Bill that the Committee Stage should be taken to-morrow, so that there may be some little interval before the Report Stage. If we took the Committee Stage on Tuesday it would mean either taking the Report Stage on that day or the next, and so holding the Bill over with no other business. I am inclined to hold to the arrangement that the Committee Stage be taken to-morrow.

Could the Minister or the President say what are the intentions with regard to a meeting of the Dáil next week or the week after? We are not opposing the Committee Stage to-morrow, but I would like if he would be clear as to what are the intentions, if the Minister talks of taking this Bill next week.

The intention is to deal with this measure and pass it next week.

What else are we to take?

The Rules of Court.

That is, if the Committee Stage were finished to-morrow, there would be for next week's business the Fourth and Fifth Stages of this Bill, and the draft Rules of Court, in the way the Minister suggested to-day. Possibly, there may also be matters from the Seanad, but it is more likely that the matters from the Seanad will have to be considered the week after next rather than next week. We have already disposed of some amendments that came from the Seanad.

We are faced with the proposition of meeting next week and the week after?

And the week after that. The Seanad will have to deal with this Bill if they agree to meet.

What is the idea?

If we do not pass this Bill till next week we would have to come back the week after that. The idea is to get this Bill to the Seanad as quickly as possible.

What is the extreme urgency just now? Why was not the Bill introduced a fortnight ago?

There must be some business last.

And it must be rushed like this.

What does the Deputy think the reason is?

I do not think the Minister was here when I was trying to describe the reason.

He was here when you did not vote on it.

Mr. HOGAN

Even though I was not here I think I know the reasons.

Ordered: That Committee Stage be taken to-morrow.

This rushing is positively indecent.

Barr
Roinn