I do not like the atmosphere that has been introduced here. I do not think we are helping the position by sneering at each other across the floor of the House. The atmosphere is not right and there is no effort to put the atmosphere right with regard to this question of tariffs. Neither the viewpoint of the manufacturers nor the viewpoint of those engaged in the industry is right. We have a scream coming from Cork for general tariffs regardless of the fact of where they are to begin or where they are to end.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - MONEY RESOLUTION—TARIFF COMMISSION BILL, 1926. DEBATE RESUMED.
The Dáil went into Committee on Finance.
That is not so.
We find that the wages paid in Cork to assemblers—not fitters, but men who put little parts of machines together—amount to £5. In Dublin the wages of the same employees amount to £3 7s. 6d., and on the other side of the Channel the wages amount to £2 17s. 6d. The output on the other side is fully one hundred per cent. greater than the output in Dublin or Cork.
Where did the Deputy get his figures?
If any Deputy is prepared to contradict me, he is at absolute liberty to do so. I am giving the figures paid in wages in Cork, Dublin and England.
I would like to know where the Deputy got his figures from.
Apparently Deputy Morrissey does not like these figures.
I do not like Deputy Gorey stating what is not true.
Deputy Gorey is telling the absolute truth.
I do not know if it is against the rules for the Ceann Comhairle to express agreement with a Deputy. Deputy Gorey began his speech by saying that he did not like the atmosphere in which this matter is being discussed. I would like to express the most complete agreement with Deputy Gorey in that respect, and I would suggest to him that the atmosphere is not being improved; in fact, it is becoming more rarified and more difficult to get along in. This is a Money Resolution to pay the expenses of a Tariff Commission which will inquire into tariffs. I am quite prepared to agree, and have in fact agreed, that the discussion can be pretty wide, because very big issues are involved. A Money Resolution can hardly be deemed to carry the discussion so far as this whole question of relative rates of wages and so on. We have already had a fair discussion in regard to the position of farmers. We had Deputy Sears on one side and Deputy Baxter on the other side. I was hoping that the question in regard to farmers was more or less settled on both sides. Just think of the immense and acrimonious extent of the wages question.
Deputy Gorey has nothing else to talk about.
My object was to improve the position, and the way to improve it is to recognise where the faults are and try to meet them. If Deputies want to hide the facts and to hide where faults are, and will make no effort to remedy what needs to be remedied, then the last position is worse than the first.
What I have in mind is a machine that was on exhibit at the Dublin Show. It was a thistle-cutter, and the price asked for it was £26. It was a simple little machine that could easily be sold for ten guineas. If it was produced outside Ireland I am sure it would be sold for at least twelve guineas. That gives us a clear-cut idea that things are not right. It shows us that the protection which this Commission is to be set up in connection with is not protection for efficiency or to give a fair chance to Irish industries, but really means protection for inefficiency. There were no sales of that thistle-cutter for which £26 were asked. If the machine could be sold for twelve or fifteen guineas, I am sure forty or fifty machines could be disposed of at the show. I have all this from the agents. The explanation of the maker of this machine, produced at Cork, is that the price is high because of the cost of wages and the output. There was another machine also from Cork, a single-drill scarifier. I wonder does Deputy Morrissey know what that means?
Of course, Deputy Gorey has all the intelligence. He knows nothing at all about the Bill and therefore he must abuse everybody.
That sort of talk is cheap.
That is the way to improve the atmosphere.
Who is the maker of that machine?
For a single-drill scarifier made or assembled in Cork we are asked £4 5s. That article was put on the market a few years ago at £1 15s. It was put on the market by an Irish inventor and he could not sell it. After going through the hands of the Cork assemblers the price is now put at £4 5s., though when it was offered at £1 15s. there was no sale. And there is no sale now for it, because of the price at which it is put on the market. That is the position that farmers are faced with at present, and that is the position that they are asked to bolster up. This is the position that they are asked to sustain. And now we are told "wages must be arranged regardless of output," and that wages must be guaranteed under this Bill or that it is no good. I say that such a state of things gives us no confidence whatsoever in the future. Every step will be viewed by us with suspicion, and not alone with suspicion, but with a conviction that we are not going to get value for our money, and that we are going to be fleeced. If we could see a real effort made to meet the position with regard to the acceptance of a fair wage or a wage that the industry could pay, and that there would be a fair output, we would have very little to say on this question and very little qualms about putting our hands in our pockets although they are already depleted to the last copper in trying to put this industrial position right.
But step after step and evidence after evidence is convincing us that there is nothing like that going to ensue. We feel suspicion and distrust and we are absolutely certain that the result is only going to be that the very class of man who cannot defend himself in this country is going to be fleeced. I have been asked by the Deputy from Cork to name the Cork manufacturer of the thistle-cutter and I do now name him. It is MacBride.
How does the price compare with the cross-Channel price for the same article?
There is no other thistle-cutter of this description that I am aware of. This is a circular disc-knife, and it is a real good little machine.
Nothing else could come from Cork.
I have one of these myself. I got it years ago. If it could be sold at a reasonable price there would be no difficulty in getting a sale for it. There would be plenty of sale for it. It is a simple machine.
You have no idea of the price of the cross-Channel machine of the same kind?
It is about £10 10s.
What is the price of the cross-Channel scarifier?
You would get a double scarifier that would take two drills for less than the price of the Cork one. That, sir, is the feeling we have on this question. The same might be said about the Ford motorcars. The price outside the Saorstát is £125. The price of the Cork manufactured Ford is £150. What is the explanation? Is it because this is protected in Ireland? Is that why the Irish people must pay out of their pockets £25 in excess of the price anywhere else? What is the explanation? Is it that wages in Cork are higher? Or is it they will not work in Cork and give a fair output? Or is it that the manufacturer, because these are manufactured in Ireland, will demand £25 more on each motor car than he is prepared to sell it outside?
That is the scarifier now.
Well, it is alleged to be a motor-car and many people consider it is a motor-car. I think it would be well to accept it as something with some real sense and some real truth in it that the Irish farmer is not as big a fool as even Deputy Johnson or Deputy Morrissey would take him to be. Those who make those charges against him should not take him for being as big a fool as they think.
I never suggested that the farmer was a fool.
There are other alternatives.
Another question has been asked, whether by fostering these industries we absorb 80,000 unemployed or whether we are to meet that problem otherwise. Now, I hold that it is a very small percentage of that 80,000 unemployed that is going to be absorbed. And not alone will we be carrying this weight of 80,000 unemployed, but we will be carrying the new weight as well. Would any sensible man say, whatever the number of unemployed is in Ireland, whether it is 80,000 or more or less, that 10,000 of those are going to be employed even if we adopt a general tariff? Does anybody make that assertion? Can anybody prove it? I say the position will be that we will be supporting these 70,000 or 80,000 unemployed even if we adopt tariffs, except we find other means of employment for them. At the same time we will be subsidising all the industries that want protection. That is to say, the people of Ireland will be carrying two loads instead of one. It is altogether misleading to say that you are going to get rid of one by taking on the other. The real truth is that you are adding on a new one to the load you are already carrying. That is the reason why we are taking the stand we have taken on this particular question.
took the Chair.
Deputy Johnson said that the form of the Bill, and certain words in the resolution indicated that this was being approached as a revenue problem, and the Bill was given something of the character of a revenue Bill. That is a misunderstanding. There are three Departments which would be concerned with any proposals about tariffs. The Department of Finance, the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the Department of Lands and Agriculture, are the three Departments I refer to. These would be the three Departments which would be primarily concerned. The action to be taken as a result of any report would be the actual action that would be taken by the Department of Finance. The Department of Industry and Commerce might be said to lean, and would, ordinarily, lean perhaps in favour of getting people employed by the imposition of tariffs. The Department of Agriculture would perhaps lean somewhat in the other direction, and it has been thought desirable that so far as there is departmental and ministerial responsibility for the Commission, that that should be exercised through the Minister for Finance. I do not think that there is a great deal of substance in the arguments put forward by Deputy Johnson, that this problem is being approached in the wrong way, or that in practice we will have less or more of the pulling and dragging to which he refers under the system that we are proposing than under the sort of Commission that he would suggest.
It is a fact that most industries in the Saorstát, leaving out altogether the big industries like brewing and one or two others, are applying for protection. They are actually approaching the Minister and they have been urging their case with persistence. In certain cases they argue that their circumstances are such that the question is a question of urgency. It was primarily to deal with the situation produced by the applications of manufacturers and by their arguments that the existing industries cannot wait a great length of time for consideration that this Bill has been introduced, and that it is proposed that this Commission be set up. You will not alter the fundamental facts of the situation by giving wider powers to the Commission. You will not, anyhow, remove any element of pulling and dragging that may exist by saying that the Government shall examine applications and refer them to the Commission later. As a matter of fact. I think that on the whole we will have a much better and a much fairer system of examination by having people, who think that protection is necessary for the mere preservation of their industries or for the preservation and expansion of their industries, come before the Commission of Inquiry and prove their cases. You will not then have the energies directed to putting pressure other than, shall we say, the pressure of argument upon Ministers. I certainly think that what we propose is, on the whole, a much more satisfactory arrangement than that proposed by Deputy Johnson. In so far as there may be nobody interested enough to apply for protection, the case is one that should be dealt with otherwise. I have already instanced the case of sugar beet. If anything like that were to appear to Ministers to require examination and with regard to which action would seem desirable, our view is that we should have that specially investigated, but the body that would investigate that need not be, and probably should not be, the body which is investigating the ordinary run of proposals. Because the ordinary run of proposals refers to industries already in existence and about which certain definite facts can be obtained, the work is entirely different from the work necessary where you have not an industry in existence, where you have to act very much more on faith, where the matter is really a matter of policy and of experiment, and where the details of cost cannot be weighed and, largely owing to the definitely experimental nature of the work, do not count a great deal.
I do not think, however, that one can say that even the application of a manufacturer is purely an application based on personal interests. In many cases it will be based on personal interest. But there are manufacturers and people who have gone into the business of manufacturing and who are prepared to go into the business of manufacturing, who will look at the problems of tariffs from more than a purely personal interest. We have all of us known such people. They are unfortunately not very many—we have all known people who have definitely gone into industry not because they were going to make any more profit by putting their money into Irish industries than by investing it outside Ireland but because they thought that the country needed this expansion, and because they thought that it was up to them to do something towards producing that expansion. You will also find that many manufacturers have other interests in the country, and that there will even in applications put forward by groups of manufacturers be a very definite element of consideration of national interests. In any case many sorts of tribunals might be established and they might have a great variety of functions. We have particular work that we think it necessary to have done. We are concerned to put up what we have put up as the best machinery to do that work. If, later on, it is felt that it has become urgent to discharge other functions, we will consider whether we will extend the powers of this Commission, or set up another Commission. We have given this matter a good deal of consideration. It had been given some consideration even before the question of setting up the tribunal was considered. It had been given consideration even before the Budget statement was made in 1925. On the 24th April, 1925, I said in the Dáil: "I am not saying that, in the course of a year or so, we ought not to have some sort of formal tribunal examining matters and having cases made and opposed before it." As long ago as the 24th April, 1925, I indicated we had given attention to the desirability of having a tribunal where cases would be formally made and opposed by those who might be affected if the applications were granted.
A good deal of the discussion to-day has been repetition of discussion that took place on the Bill, and to my mind it only emphasises the need for restricting the scope of this Commission if we are to get good results from it. If we are to widen its scope so that it is to deal with general principles, then it might be operating for a considerable time without getting us much further. The question of having a protective policy or a rigidly free trade policy is not one that could be decided by any tribunal or in regard to which the investigations or findings of any tribunal could carry us very much further. Those are matters for which politicians must take political responsibility.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Michael Egan.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Seán MacCurtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conall.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O Shaughnessy.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- William Norton.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Tierney. Níl: Deputies Corish and Morrissey.
Motion declared carried.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Resolution reported.
Question—"That the Dáil agrees with the Committee in this resolution"—put and agreed to.
The Dáil went into Committee on Finance