So far as I have followed the debate on this question, the point at issue is, I think, whether, by a system of tariffs and prohibition of imports, the economic policy of this country is going to be changed so that we are to become, instead of an agricultural country, a country of manufacturers of textiles and other goods. As a free trader, I disagree in toto with the theories of the Fianna Fáil Party and also, as a free trader, I disagree with the practice of the Government Party—I will not call it a policy, as they do not appear to have an economic policy, but they have many malpractices. I also find myself in disagreement with the next largest Party, the Labour Party, because I think they are largely responsible for having forced the Government into a policy of what is called "selective tariffs." We had a long debate the other day on unemployment, and during the course of that debate, Deputy Little, I think, gave us a long extract from a primer on international finance. I do not know why a member of that particular Party has been reading primers on international matters, because that Party do not want to have any communication with people outside. I think it would be a very excellent thing for members of this House if somebody would read a primer on economics or distribute copies amongst Deputies who were going to talk on that subject. I take one particular in stance. It has been stated by the Minister for Finance that the yield from the tax on boots is something like £272,000, and that that is the amount of money which the purchasers of boots have to pay in consequence of the tariff. That statement has not been made by him alone, but it has been generally admitted by every speaker who touched on the point. It is quite a fallacious statement.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - FINANCIAL MOTION (NO. 3) (RESUMED).
I said, as a matter of fact, that we recognised that that was about the amount of revenue which a threepenny tax on tea would give us, and that we reduced the tax on tea at the same time as the boot tariff was imposed so that no extra taxation was collected from the people.
took the Chair.
I am not talking about tea, but a tariff on boots. The statement has been made that the only difference to the purchasers of boots is this £272,000. That is wrong, and I think I will be able to show by rather simple figures that it is not alone the amount the revenue gains by the tariff that a purchaser has to pay, but he has to pay in addition to that a profit to two people. Take a pair of imported boots that cost £1. On that £1 3/- is put on at once when the boots reach this country. Therefore, that pair of boots costs the wholesaler £1 3s. The wholesaler is entitled to a profit when he is selling to a retailer. I will put that profit down at, say, 10 per cent., which is not excessive. That would make the wholesaler's profit amount to 2/4, and the selling price of the wholesaler would be £1 5s. 4d. The ordinary retail profit of people who sell boots and articles like that is about 33? per cent. That percentage on £1 5s. 4d. brings the cost of the pair of boots to the purchaser at £1 13s. 9d. Take a pair of boots which cost £1 and on which there is no tariff. The wholesaler's 10 per cent. profit would bring the price to £1 2s. The retailer's profit on the £1 2s. would be 7/4, so that the purchaser pays £1 9s. 4d., the difference in the price of the two pairs of boots being 4/5. Instead of paying 3/- in the £ the purchaser has to pay 4/5. Consequently the Minister for Finance is quite wrong when he says that the total amount paid extra by the purchasers of the boots is £272,000. It is as much as half that again. The manufacturers of boots in this country are not so philanthropic that they do not, in calculating their prices, take into consideration that boots are protected, and they would get a little bit extra profit as a consequence. There is no question about that. I think the Minister for Finance will admit that the cost of boots has gone up, and I think the figures relating to home manufacture and imports will prove that. As the quality of boots has gone down three pairs are required now where two would have done before.
Assuming that the Irish manufacturers take advantage, as they can do, of the 3/- tariff and put it on his costs, he could still sell a pair of boots at 2/1 less to the purchaser. Supposing the boot is the same as the English boot sold at £1, and that the Irish manufacturer charged £1 3s., there is the profit to the wholesaler of 7/8, and when the 33? per cent. profit is added to that, the price to the purchaser is £1 10s. 8d., and with the tariff on the manufacturer has the advantage of 3/1. It is quite understandable that when that position of affairs is here the Irish manufacturer sees that by putting on the extra 3/- which the tariff allows him to do, he can undersell the foreign article by 3/1. That is one aspect of the question. I was rather surprised the other day to hear the President make a case—and I do not think he was very serious about it, as he was fishing in the Opposition waters and was throwing an odd fly for them to catch—that the Irish farmer who did not buy stocks and shares, and did not drink or use tobacco, paid no taxes whatever. Then he went on to say that if we wore Irish boots—I think he forgot clothes—the farmer still pays no tax. Any man buying Irish boots is paying the 3/- tax, if not more, and the same applies to Irish clothes. There is no question but that every tax is passed on to the consumer. Now we come to the cost of living. Every one of these tariffs increases the cost of living. At present the farmer's produce is as low as the pre-war value, if not a shade lower, and for everything he buys he is paying not alone a higher rate but double in some cases. I think it was Deputy Morrissey who said that the farmer should be the last person to talk about tariffs, for he bought less than anybody else. That is a most extraordinary statement. The farmer is supposed to be an individual who neither drinks nor smokes, and practically does not wear clothes, and evidently he does not wash his face and use any tariffed soap.
From what we heard on the Unemployment Bill perhaps Deputy Morrissey was right in jumping to that conclusion. Suppose we change from an agricultural to an industrial country, I would like to know from those who are trying to get every article not only tariffed but prohibited from coming in, who are to be the customers of all the factories and industries that are to be established under the system they advocate? Are they going to live by taking in each other's washing? As far as I understand, the only incentive to manufacturers, whether of soap, candles or tobacco, is to provide for the agricultural population, which is three-fourths of the whole population. Yet we are told if we all flock into the towns and go into industries this country will be prosperous—prosperous, as I say, by taking in each other's washing and taking people off the lands. Deputy de Valera was taunted the other evening with having no policy, although he said he had a clear-cut policy. It was the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I think, who quoted him largely, and who said he could see no clear-cut policy from Fianna Fáil. Perhaps I did not read the extracts which were quoted from Deputy de Valera's speech on the unemployment question, or at least I did not stress the parts read by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but I certainly saw a very clearly defined economic policy in Deputy de Valera's speech. He said his first position in this matter was that a person in this country, to use his own terms, "enmeshed in modern society," should have the rights as if they were in a savage state; in other words, that we have no right in modern society to take the savage instinct out of it. The second position was, he argued, that we should provide all the food necessary. With that I quite agree. He went on to say he was not quite clear that we could provide all the clothing required, but that we could go to near to providing 50 per cent. As to providing shelter, he had doubts about timber, but he thought that we could get a substitute in the country which would enable us to leave out the question of timber, and consequently that we could build our own houses. Food, clothing and shelter —that is what I might call the primer of economics; we begin with that. But he developed that a little further, and having satisfied himself that we could have food, clothing and shelter, and that we would take means to see that the little bit of savage that is in us remains in us, and that we have all the rights a savage has, he went on to say that we should establish our economic policy so that, in five years' time, we could be completely isolated. His own economic policy is to isolate us at once. But allowing him five years, in five years' time we were to establish our own economic policy, as if we were going to be isolated.
I wonder what would happen in the meantime? What would the agriculturalists be doing if there was to be no export trade at the end of five years? Of course, the first thing that would happen would be that all the breeding animals would be sold out of the country. The second would be that all the boys and girls who were not wanted on the land, and saw no prospects in it, would also leave. Under these economic conditions I could visualise in five years' time, or perhaps a little afterwards, a period when you would see a man going out with a stone axe, slaying a wild boar and bartering it with a man who had a lamb skin that he could use as a loin-cloth to cover his waist. That is a very high social ambition. These are the class of economics that I call economics of the Stone Age, and I do not want any Stone Age economics in this country.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce quoted Deputy de Valera as saying that it was the primary duty of agriculture to provide food for the people. That is quite true, but the Minister did not accept the word "agriculture"; he said "we will substitute the word `farmers' for it." I do not know why he should substitute the word "farmers" for "agriculture," because in reality I think that is what is happening all along, and that is what makes us lose sight of the importance of agriculture, because as far as my experience goes, the farmers have been the butt of this House, have been sneered at from all sides, simply because they are farmers.
Misrepresentatives of the farmers—the ranchers.
Excuse me. There were more people sneering at them than yourselves, although you did your part.
We have twenty-three farmers here.
In order to score a point the Minister substituted the word "farmers," and he asked how the farmers were to be paid for supplying the food. Deputy Flinn interrupted by saying that they would be paid by goods. Of course that is quite right, and that exactly follows out my idea as to what the condition of affairs would be if the Stone Age economics were to come. We would have internal barter. We cannot have external barter, because that is heresy so far as Fianna Fáil is concerned, and it goes to show that this internal barter is part and parcel of the Stone Age economics which Deputy de Valera wants to put on the country. To give another little illustration of the relative importance, so far as the Government and other Parties in this House are concerned, of agriculture and industry, I will give one or two examples. In drafting his amendment to the motion on Unemployment the Minister for Industry and Commerce was very careful to put "industry" first and "agriculture" second, although he was working agriculture for all it was worth on that occasion. But it was "industry—agriculture"; it was not "agriculture—industry."
I hold that agriculture is our principal industry, and that agriculture in all cases should come first, but it does not. We were discussing questions arising out of tariffs on beads and margarine, tariffs on the food of the people and on the piety of the people. The total revenue from rosary beads was something like £8,000, and from margarine something like £200,000 odd. But what I want to point out is this, that here we are, after two days' debate—we had a long debate on the first resolution and we have another to-day, which will probably be prolonged for some time— these things were of such outstanding importance to the State that the time of the representatives of the State must be taken up for days discussing taxes on the food and on the piety of the people. I had a few questions down touching matters of a little more importance, such as the little pork trade that this country is going in for and of which it has the monopoly across the water, where it has no competitor. This trade was worth £4,000,000 in six months. I asked why it was that the industry was not organised by the Government in such a way as would facilitate farmers to get this pork on the English market in proper condition. I asked why the Government did not provide crates, which are the proper means for sending it, and I asked some other questions, but I was told by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture that it did not matter. Four million pounds does not matter, but £8,000 for the bead industry is of so much importance that we are kept here discussing it.
A scheme was financed with a paltry £15,000 to provide loans for machinery, to enable farmers to purchase machinery if they had not the full amount of money necessary. These were not free grants; they were loans for three years. The farmers had to pay one-third of the money down and the rest in three instalments, and on top of that had to pay interest at the rate of 6½ per cent. It was no gift to the farmers; there was nothing for nothing there. But when that fund ran out the Minister for Lands and Agriculture did not come to the House and say: "Here is a most important thing for the harvest of the country. We want a supplementary loan." There was not a word about that. It was let peter out, and there was not a penny from August to enable agriculturalists to get loans for potato diggers or any other agricultural implements which they required for the harvest. These are matters affecting millions of money and the very foundations of the State, but we are told that they do not matter, that margarine and beads are the things that matter in Ireland to-day. We will have to change that policy. President Cosgrave the other day told Deputies on these benches that their policy was economically a heretical one, and at the end of his speech he said: "We have taxed fifty-five per cent. of the stuff coming into this country which is taxable." So that he is a self-admitted fifty-five per cent. heretic. I am a fifty-five per cent. heretic and I am boasting of it. I want to make President Cosgrave and others, if they have any regard for this country, a hundred per cent. free traders and let the Stone Age economists paddle their own canoe in future.
There is another matter which may not come within the scope of this debate, but having regard to the irrelevancies of the debates during the last fortnight or so, I think it may not be out of place to refer to it now. I saw in this morning's paper that the fluke was rampant again. Some Ministers may not like to hear the word "fluke," because we know what happened in 1924-5, when the fluke was killing the cattle all over the country, and when it laid the foundation of the present poverty-stricken condition of the farmers. But the fluke is with us to-day. Are we going to have three days debate on the fluke and on how the farmers should be compensated for their losses, just as we have had a debate on margarine and beads? I think this is a matter that we should be discussing to-day instead of the question of putting 3d. a pound on margarine. Take a parallel case; suppose one of the industries that have been bolstered up by the Trade Loan Act—and I do not object to the Trade Loan Act, or to helping industries by subsidies or otherwise if we can do it—but suppose one of these industries was blown down by a storm and all the machinery destroyed the Trade Loan Act would immediately indemnify the owners and new machinery would be bought. We have financed money-making machines, but there is not a penny to restore the farmer. The farmer's machinery is not hand made; it is the cow, the pig and the hen.
When the farmer loses his cows, his pigs and his hens there is no fund to help him to re-stock. That is more important than dealing with beads and margarine, and I hope provision will be made immediately to deal with it. That is more important even than unemployment, and I hope that a Committee will be set up to see that a fund is established to provide against losses by fluke, and that it will not be left dormant until next year or the year after when we have wakened up to the fact that there are neither pigs, cattle nor poultry in the country. The condition of agriculture is, I think, amply reflected in this House. The fostering of agriculture as a policy by the Government is also exemplified by the dwindling representation of the agricultural classes. They are in a state of despair, and it is shown on these Benches. The farmers' representatives, or if you like to call them the Farmers' Union representatives, who are here are absorbed into the Government. I do not know whether they are going to carry out their agricultural policy or not, or whether their presence will have a beneficial effect on governmental policy. If we believe that the farmer is the man who is keeping the bread and butter in our mouths, as I believe, and if we regard him and his industry in that light, we would not have the land of this country water-logged, the banks of the streams and rivers falling in and silting them up, thus destroying land that should be reclaimed and brought into cultivation. Drainage was discussed at great length and is a set-off to the business we are discussing now——
Perhaps the Deputy would prove the relevancy between drainage and tariffs.
We are discussing economics, and that, I believe, brings it within the scope of this debate. The reclamation of land of this country from its water-logged condition from the economic point of view is of importance. The Minister for Finance stated the other day that so far no economic drainage scheme had been presented. I do not agree with him in his ideas of economic drainage schemes. The Minister instanced a case where £2,000 would be spent on providing a drainage scheme which would provide benefit to the extent of £500.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but I do not see the relevancy between drainage schemes and tariffs. It will not put the Deputy in order to repeat the word economics in every second sentence. The Deputy will have to come to the motion and show where the relevancy lies.
I will do so. The question of tariffs is one that affects the farmers very materially. It is the farmers who have to pay the tariffs, and if they have, they are entitled to have drainage done on their land in order to enable them to pay the tariffs.
That is another matter—what the farmers are entitled to under the drainage schemes. That is outside the motion we are considering, and is the law. The Deputy is referring to drainage schemes, and I cannot allow him.
I thought you did not grasp——
Is the Deputy a farmer?
He is a Deputy and that is good enongh for me.
This question of tariffs is a vital one. I do not want to strain the patience of the House to try and bring in anything that would be out of order. We are discussing tariffs, and while Deputies are laughing to-day I think they might have much better laughed yesterday and other days on the unemployment question with regard to the want of relevancy in the speeches. We are now discussing an economic question that affects agriculturists, who are 75 per cent. of the community. They must get the means of paying these tariffs that we are going to impose, and the only way to enable them to do so is to provide them with something extra. How is it going to be done? By reclaiming the land that is not now in cultivation. If there must be tariffs, give the agriculturists the means of paying for them. How is it going to be done? Certainly not with rosary beads. With an elaborate drainage scheme, you can assist the industry by getting Irish planks, wheelbarrows, Irish picks, Irish spades, and drags, and putting them into the hands of the small farmer to clean and drain his water-logged land. Will that merely reclaim the land? The fact is that the land would be dry, the stock would be healthy, the people would be healthy, the harvest would be earlier, crops would be free from disease and the land would be free from fluke and hoose. If that work were done first, and if tariffs were left aside the economic condition of this country would be much better than it is at present. The other day I stood up as a free trader, and I was backed by Deputy Cole. He did not like to deal with beads, but he dealt with the margarine question. I think there is a body of silent Deputies here who are free traders, and the sooner they make their voices heard the better for the farmer before what is called the tariff ramp is allowed to continue. I can assure Deputies that otherwise the farming industry will be lost, and there will be nothing to put tariffs on.
I never knew before that O'Hanlon was an old Anglo-Saxon name, but I am afraid that henceforward Deputy O'Hanlon will be under the stigma of being, if not in name, if not at heart, an Englishman. I notice for some time that anyone who has anything to say about farmers, and certainly anyone who has a good word to say for free trade, is immediately suspect of being under English influence. For my part, I hesitate to call myself either a free trader or a protectionist.
Call yourself an Anglo-Celt.
There were heroes, you remember, before Agamemnon, and there were protectionists and tariff reformers even before Deputy Seán Lemass. It is now a quarter of a century, or rather more, since I first heard in another place and in another country, a long drawn out tariff reform controversy, and, as sometimes happens when one becomes too well, acquainted with the subject, I am afraid it has left me a deep and profound sceptic. I find it impossible to see either in protection or in free trade a pure milk gospel. I am left with the simple conviction that in these matters every herring must hang by its own tail.
I think it was Deputy O'Kelly who told us that the debate has hitherto been somewhat academic, and presently he hoped to have an opportunity of inviting the Dáil to come down to tin tacks. I was delighted to hear that, and I have not the slightest doubt that nowhere was that declaration more welcome than on the Ministerial and Government Benches. That is exactly what we desire.
As a matter of fact, I believe that as we approach the direct consideration of the subject, the closer we get to it the more we shall find, in point of fact, that there is very little difference dividing us. I heard a speech yesterday from a representative of my own County of Tirconaill—Deputy Carney—and, so far as I remember, apart perhaps from some political frills which we all put in sometimes, I do not think there was anything in that speech which I could not immediately adopt as my own. I find nothing whatever to disagree with in it. At present there are certain very marked differences between Ministers and their critics. I suggest that the difference really comes to this in the main: that the Ministers are men who have had practical experience of the difficulties of these problems, and that their critics speak in all sincerity, with great passion, great eagerness, and a great desire to do good to their country, but not having that experience they necessarily speak—I hope they will not be offended if I say so— somewhat as I remember people speaking some forty odd years ago in my school debating society. They have, as I understand it, two main theses; first of all, that these English influences which they suspect to exist here, must be got rid of; secondly, that you must put a good thumping tariff upon everything that can be produced in this country, or, alternatively, that you must put an embargo upon all such goods with a permit where necessary to allow a certain quantity of such goods to come in. I understand that to be their programme—that is their cure-all.
There is nothing easier in the world than to suggest a high tariff, and to show that if you put on a tariff or if you put on an embargo, whichever may seem the more suitable, you will be able to give a certain amount of employment—to secure the employment at present given, or to add to it. I think that is true. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If that is all you have got to do, then I suggest that it seems to prove a little bit too much. There are countries which cannot be suspected either of being hide-bound by old-fashioned economic ideas or subject to British influences. If it were true that you have got nothing to do but to clap on a high tariff in order to produce prosperity in a country and put an end to unemployment, then it must follow that in every independent country where these old doctrines do not obtain and where English influences are not to be suspected, there could be no such thing as poverty or want of employment. I ask Deputies to consider whether that is in accordance with the facts as we know them at present.
There is a great deal more to think about than the mere question of what the effect will be on any particular trade when putting on a particular tariff. You have to think of the effect not merely on the manufacturer and the workmen employed in that trade, but also of the effect on the manufacturers and workmen employed in all sorts of other trades. You have to remember that what is the finished product of one trade is the raw material of the next. You will find that rather in unexpected ways. It is obvious that the finished product of the tannery is the raw material of the boot trade. It is equally true, as Deputy O'Hanlon pointed out, that the boots which the farmer wears in following his plough are in a certain measure part of the raw material of his industry. You have got to think not only of the tannery, but of the bootmaker and of the farmer. You have to go a step further. You have got to think again how far you are going to carry it. It is suggested that there should be a tax upon imported flour. I can see many advantages in such a tax. But if you put a tax on imported flour, are you going to put a tax on imported bread? From the speech of Deputy de Valera I rather gathered not. I understood he did not propose to put a tax upon foodstuffs.
Just to illustrate the difficulties in the matter, I have here a letter which I received during the debate from a firm in my constituency in which they complain they are being put out of business by reason of the fact that certain bakeries in the Six Counties were sending bread into the Free State, were cutting prices by 50 per cent. and putting them and their men practically out of employment. They ask that a tariff of 33? per cent. should be put on to protect the bakers in the Free State. They say that if that is done they could employ so many men. That is probably true, but obviously you cannot consider that without also considering, as Deputy O'Hanlon has pointed out, that the people of the areas at present being served will in fact be paying considerably more for their bread. That may not be a sufficient reason for refusing to put on a tariff—I do not say it is. At any rate, it is considerations of this sort which seem to be continually lost sight of and which have surely to be borne in mind.
I think this debate has shown how useful the coming in of the Fianna Fáil Party has been. We are even now getting down to tin tacks. There have been some remarkable admissions in this debate. I think that the Fianna Fáil Front Bench will admit that it is not enough merely to tack on a tax and think no more about it. I think it was Deputy O'Kelly who admitted that you must have some form of judicial committee or commission to examine all the bearings of each proposal. If that is so, really the only question that remains is whether the present Tariff Commission is the best possible. That seems to me a very fair matter for argument. The Minister for Finance has said that up to the present there has been no difficulty in getting sufficient time for attention to the various applications, but if at any time it appeared there was any such difficulty he would take immediate steps to remove it and see that time was given. So far as the debate has proceeded, unless there are new proposals, it appears to me that the Government's policy holds the field. I am personally convinced that as the Fianna Fáil Party learn responsibility, as it will one day learn it—I hope they will one day learn it in Government and in administration—I am convinced that as in a great many other things, when they have the burden of administration and of responsibility upon them, whatever may be said now, whatever may be said in the country from time to time, whatever books may say, or whatever theories they may have, they will be driven by the brute facts of life to follow very closely upon the footsteps of a detested and an abhorred Government.
I do not propose at the present stage to deal in detail with the question of tariffs. I am in complete accord with the party on these benches that a proper system of protection would bring about much needed prosperity in the country and would give employment to an increased population and benefits to the working classes. I have tried to follow the speeches made by Deputies and the points made by Ministers on the Government Benches. I have tried to find out what their outlook was and I find again here just as in the case of the debate on unemployment they have no set or defined policy. Each Minister speaks what he thinks and as a previous Deputy rightly said each Minister is promptly contradicted by a succeeding Minister from his own benches. Perhaps it would be well if I mentioned a few of the items to which I refer and in order to do so I should like to draw the minds of Deputies back to the debate on unemployment.
On that occasion the Minister for Industry and Commerce developed his arguments as much as he could against Deputies on these benches. He tried to show that we were objecting to the introduction of foreign capital into this country and he tried to show also how he was in complete accord with the desire that foreign capital should come in for the development of industry. Yet, the Minister for Finance spoke with regard to tariffs and said he was reluctant to put on severe tariffs to protect industries for fear that the result would be to bring in foreign capital. Here you have two of the most responsible Ministers on the Government Bench in absolute contradiction to each other. We on these benches have given the matter of tariffs a good deal of consideration and we never said that we wanted to put on a tariff on everything that can be made automatically as high as possible. What we say is we believe a tariff policy would protect this country. But we also say, at the outset, that a tariff to be imposed must be examined from all angles and points of view and not only must it be examined by members of our party and by members of the House but that an independent Tariff Commission should be set up not bound to any single party or body in this House which should examine the question purely and simply as part of their life in this country. Reference has also been made to the suggestion we made with regard to the present Tariff Commission. We pointed out, and I believe the House sympathises with us, that it took nine months to hatch out, as Deputy Corry declared, a tariff on rosary beads and margarine. We do not know, at present, whether they are a protectionist party or a free trade party.
On the one hand it is pointed out by Deputy O'Hanlon we are in terrific danger because we preach perfection; but, as he pointed out also, the President takes it upon himself to pat his Party on the back by saying to them: "We have already tariffed fifty-five per cent. of the commodities coming in," and from the trend of the general discussion it looked as if they were out for a further advance in protection.
Deputy Lemass, when referring to the tariff on boots, sought to point out that the tariff of fifteen per cent. was not sufficient as regards protection for that industry in this country, arising out of information received from the boot industry in England. Yet it is sought to turn Deputy Lemass's remarks in that regard as if he were asking for a tariff of forty per cent. He said no such thing; he simply pointed out that the tariff was not a proper one and did not arise from the setting up of a Tariff Commission, but was put on hastily without any due consideration of the views of the trade or the industry. The Minister for Finance gave the secret away. He speaks with the mind of the Minister for Finance. He sees on the one hand expenditure and on the other hand he wants to see revenue. When he considers the advisability and possibility of increasing a tariff on boots for the purpose of bringing about extra industry he tells the House that they are going to put an extra burden on the shoulders of the community in the shape of loss of revenue. His whole consideration is in reference to this £300,000 he receives in revenue, and we must not interfere with that for fear we would lose revenue. Has he ever considered the advisability or possibility of reducing Government extravagance in expenditure and bringing about a saving of £300,000 by that means? He does not consider the fact that if you make sufficient boots and shoes here to save £300,000 you would be giving employment for the production of one million pounds worth of boots. I do not say it could be done automatically, but eventually when manufacturing one million pounds worth of boots the benefit to the taxpayer would result from employment being given, whereas at present people who should be engaged in the industry are drawing outdoor relief and receiving other benefits from the State which cost the taxpayers money.
Deputy O'Hanlon spoke about the Stone Age economics as put to the House from these Benches. He gave us a picture of a man running about the country with a stone axe after a wild boar if our policy were followed and adopted. Might I point out to him that at the present time there are people running about with collection boxes for the unemployed, who probably would be glad to meet a wild boar to be able to get food from it. He also objected to our policy on the grounds, as he stated, that it would mean an increased cost to the farmer, but Deputy Heffernan, who is supposed to be the leader of the Farmers' Party——
He is not the leader of the Farmers' Party now, as there is no Farmers' Party.
I apologise. At the recent general election he said he was the leader of the Farmers' Party, and claimed to be a farmer. He told us that what he is concerned with is to bring about better prices for what the farmer has to sell. He forgot to tell us that if the farmer gets a better price for his produce the cost of living will automatically go up for the person who has to buy the farmer's produce. He wants to have it his way, but does not want to have it the other way. The Minister for Finance made a rather strange remark. During the debate he was asked a question as to why it was that he did not consider a certain class of business, and his answer was that it was only a small industry which did not require any consideration. He will consider a tariff only on that industry or that particular commodity on which at the present time there is a big importation, because as soon as a tariff is imposed he sees a big increase in revenue.
I would like the Minister to inquire into the condition of a very small industry that exists in the country at the present time. It is an industry which is engaged in the manufacture of coffin mountings. In spite of the huge toll of emigration from the country there still appears to be quite a large number of burials. From investigations that I have made myself I find that if a tariff were imposed on the importation of coffin mounting materials an industry which employs at the present time from 20 to 30 hands in Dublin city alone, not to speak of Cork, could guarantee employment to between 300 and 400 people. With that industry goes a foundry. That is a concern that has been in existence in Dublin for 80 years. I understand those associated with it are in sympathy with the tariff that I mention. If protection were given for the manufacture of coffin mounting materials this firm could make handles for the coffins and employ a goodly number of men. These are small industries, and if you protect them you will not be up against the argument that you are going to increase the cost of living. I suggest you should help to develop some of these small industries first, bit by bit. Afterwards you can put your mind to the development of the bigger industries.
The Minister for Lands and Agriculture stated that it would be a terrible thing if we were to consider applying tariffs to goods which amount to £15,000,000 a year in a period of three to five years. He forgets that in a single day the Government of which he is a Minister applies a tariff on goods the importation of which amounts to £10,000,000. With regard to the Tariff Commission, I sought before to develop a point that we brought out on that We suggested that the members of the Tariff Commission were not competent as a result of their display and the time spent in bringing about a tariff on the small items they dealt with. I find now that the Tariff Commission is a sort of handicap. I do not want to suggest that the members who compose the Commission are anything but the finest and highest types of men. I do know this, that where a member of the Civil Service owes his appointment to the Executive Council, he holds it at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council. I submit that as a result of that, that where you have a Tariff Commission composed, if not wholly but partly, of such individuals, that they are bound to reflect the mind of the existing Executive Council in the results that they bring about with regard to their propositions. I find, further, that if the present Government really intended to consider the protection of industry at home it would be reflected throughout all the Departments they control. Take the Stationery Office. One of the members of the Tariff Commission is in charge of that office, and yet that civil servant admits that in the years 1925/26 only one per cent. of the paper purchased by that Department was of Irish manufacture.
Did he tell you what percentage of it was made in Ireland?
I could give further particulars on that. I believe the Deputy who has just spoken is a member of the Committee where we got that information. In 1925/26 the Saggart Mills were open and they could have been given a little more encouragement. Further, a boodbinding industry exists in this country. There are many bookbinders idle at the present time, and yet portion of the bookbinding for that Department is brought in from across the Channel. I submit that the present Executive Council has not given serious consideration to the support of industry. At the present time the Commissioners who have taken over the office of the Dublin Corporation are purchasing materials in England which hitherto were purchased in Dublin from the firm of Ross and Walpole, as a result of which that firm, which originally employed from 300 to 400 men on a certain line of work, now only employs three men to keep the machinery greased. I say, as regards goods that can be made in this country, and where the spending of public money is concerned, that at least they should be given a certain amount of preference. That would help to keep people from becoming unemployed.
Deputy Heffernan spoke of the farmer as being a man with the farmer's mind, and who thought of nothing else but the farming industry and the benefit it would bring him. He suggested that Deputy Lemass and myself, in our particular business, were not patriotic when it came to business, that we were out to make the best we could. I agree, but I say this, that a man in business in this country must of necessity and unconsciously be patriotic in his outlook. He wants to find the biggest market, as near as he possibly can, for his particular line of goods, and hopes to see a bigger population here than there is at present. Instead of a declining population he would like to see as much employment as possible; he would like to see a greater number of consumers and have less trouble in getting business. Therefore, I submit to Deputy Heffernan that the farmer is unconsciously as patriotic in his outlook as any other business man.
I must again introduce the Shannon scheme. What hardship would there have been if the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when putting into operation the Shannon scheme, had considered two points, first, the Shannon scheme becoming an economic danger, and at the same time the possibility, with the opening up of the Shannon scheme, of starting an electrical industry in this country? At the time the Shannon scheme was started, his Department should have set out to see if certain items in conjunction with electricity could not have been made in this country. If the Minister desires, I can enumerate a few items which can easily be made here. If a tariff had been imposed on them, it would not have caused great hardship to people. I submit, when the Shannon scheme comes into being, it will be an economic danger from this point of view. You will have flowing out of this country millions of pounds for the purchase of material in conjunction with that scheme. One of the basic arguments in favour of the scheme, the saving in the cost of coal, will become very small in comparison with the amount of money going out to purchase equipment for that scheme. Even to-day something should be done with regard to that. We should see if we cannot possibly attract the opening up of an industry in connection with commodities used for the Shannon scheme.
I have tried to prove that, first of all, the present Tariff Commission is not capable of dealing with the situation. Secondly, I believe the present Executive Council has not attempted to reflect, if it has that particular outlook, the outlook of supporting home industries, and of having a progressive tariff policy for its own Departments. I suggest to Deputies that they should find out how many articles, capable of being purchased here by Government Departments, are purchased outside the country.
While not in agreement with the Government in their previous tariff policy, I believe they are proceeding on right lines by the method of selective tariffs, in taking industry by industry and examining each case on its merits. I think Deputy O'Hanlon fell into error when he suggested this resolution was put down for discussion as the result of the proposed tariff on rosary beads and margarine.
I take it the motion was put down by the Minister to act as a peg upon which to hang a discussion on the whole question of tariffs, and I think the Minister was right in so doing, because it will obviate a good deal of discussion in the very near future, when other matters come before this House dealing with the fiscal policy of the State. I want to state my own position, and I believe it is the position of the Labour Party, in connection with the whole subject of tariffs. I declare myself, and that declaration is shared by every member of our Party, that, subject to provision being made (1) for transmitting benefits which may be derived from a protective tariff to the workers engaged in the industries affected and (2) for preventing the growth of profit-seeking monopolies, trusts and combines in Saorstát Eireann, we are in favour of tariffs. Whilst committing myself to a tariff on certain commodities, I may remark that I am not a whole-hog protectionist, but I believe in examining industry by industry and treating each case on its merits. I quite appreciate the dangers of high tariffs, and the opinions I hold are shared by many industrialists, some of whom are about to seek protection for the commodities they manufacture. If we have a highly-tariffed commodity, I can quite perceive the attraction for monopolies and trusts outside the Saorstát to come into this country. Unfortunately, we, in the manufacture of some commodities, have not the tradition behind us that the people across the Channel and foreigners have. I see the danger, and I am sure that danger must have been anticipated and seen by the Tariff Commission when they put on a tariff on boots to the extent only of fifteen per cent.
Let us consider for a moment, what would have occurred if that tariff had been higher. Put on a tariff of forty or fifty per cent., and you make that industry attractive for foreigners, who by virtue of being millionaire combines would be able to come into the Saorstát, and, with their highly organised industry and the long tradition of the boot industry behind them, would be able to undersell our own local manufacturers. There are, I know, very marked differences between many tariff reformers as to the extent of the tariff; whilst they may agree, generally speaking, that a tariff is necessary, they are not always in agreement as to the extent of the tariff. I think, so far, at any rate, that the Department concerned has been wise in not acceding to the requests of some for very high tariffs. There is one phase of the question of tariffs which I think has not been touched on so far, the question of dumping, sending into this country commodities to be sold under the cost of production. Anyone who knows anything about mass production, whether in bootmaking, printing or any other industry, knows that, say, after the first thousand pairs of boots, a succeeding one thousand pairs of boots can be manufactured more cheaply. Consequently, manufacturers who can turn out sixty or seventy thousand pairs in a given time can undersell the manufacturer who can turn out only twenty thousand. That is, to students of economics, a very elementary statement.
There is an industry with which I am concerned, namely, the woollen industry, and, if ever there was a justification for seeking a tariff on commodities, it is in the case of the woollen industry so far as the Saorstát is concerned. Up to about 1920 we had the sum of £296,789 paid out in wages. At that time, there were 2,813 hands employed in the Saorstát. There are, roughly, about eleven hundred operatives at work to-day in these mills. So far as the important mills in Douglas are concerned they are at present working at less than half time. A very important mill, the name of which should be familiar in this country, and throughout the world, the Blarney Tweed Mills, has been running short time for a considerable period.
The manufacturers state that under the conditions which this House can give, which the Tariff Commission can give—and the Tariff Commission is the instrument of this House—they can produce all the woollens that this country requires, and they can sell them at an economic price. There are, of course, such industries as body building for motor cars, and other portions of the motor car which, at the moment, are crying out for protection. There is again a phase of this question which I have not heard touched on in the House, namely, the fact that some of these motor buses are dumped into the country, as already explained, at a price under the cost of production. That dumping has been brought about by the cut-throat policy of competition amongst bus companies competing with each other at the other side of the Channel. When one bus company succeeds in crushing out the competing company, the result is that the cars of the company which is going under as a result of this competition, are dumped into this country. As I have already stated, I am not a whole hogger on this question of tariffs, but I do hope that as a result of this discussion something will evolve that will mean increased employment, or conversely decreased unemployment, for those who have been engaged in the industries to which I have referred.
There is another industry in the country which is suffering very severely and which, up to the present at any rate, has not made application to the Tariff Commission for a tariff. That is the printing industry. The printing industry is suffering from competition, not alone from Great Britain, where competition is conducted on something like fair and equitable lines, but from Belgium, Holland, France, Sweden and other foreign countries. Even without a tariff, but with a considerable strengthening of the Merchandise Marks Act, much of this printing would not get into the country, at least much of the class of printing to which I refer would not get into circulation here. I want to refer particularly to prayer-books and such religious literature, most of which bears on the front page the name of an Irish publisher, but which bears, at the same time, an imprint in letters of an almost invisible type showing that the work was printed by some foreign printer. The type is so small that it is almost invisible. At times this really to me appears profane when I see such Scriptural quotations on these books as "Suffer the little children to come unto Me," printed in Germany. These are some of the Scriptural quotations in those books which, from time to time, are imported into this highly Catholic and civilised country.
As I have already said, I do hope that something will evolve from this discussion, something in the nature of protection for the industries to which I have referred. I do not share the fears that some of the Deputies on my right-hand side, particularly the representatives, or the one-time representatives, of the now happily defunct Farmers' Party, appear to suffer from, namely, that if these commodities to which I have referred are tariffed, the farmers will be so burdened with taxation that they will, in fact, get out of business altogether. I do not, on this occasion, want to contribute anything further to the discussion, except to express the hope that some good will evolve out of what has taken place here.
Dealing with this matter from the farmers' point of view, I want to say that I have been very much interested in the debate. I was struck by the significance of the speeches so far that while they refer again and again with anxiety to the possibility of tariffs being injurious to farmers, the whole trend of the discussion was such as would lead one to believe that the position of the farmer was that of normal. Nothing could be more misleading. We are dealing with economics in this House, and it is fairly and very often stated that the economic situation of the country is represented by the farmer and by the position of the farmer. We are dealing with a state of things economically, that from the farmers' standpoint, as well as from the national standpoint, constitutes a really very dangerous position. When men come forward to discuss, possibly with a redress for these desperate conditions, I think there should be some more stress laid upon the actual conditions than has been laid. Tariffs, to my mind, are necessary to the farmers' existence.
I was very much struck by the attitude taken up by Deputy Heffernan, who claims to speak as a farmers' representative. He said that the time had come when those who were interested in farmers must stick their heels into the ground and resist any further efforts at having tariffs hoisted on their backs. From that we ought to assume that tariffs are injurious to the farmers. The facts, to my mind, are in opposition to this. If we examine the conditions of France and America we will find that both these countries are highly tariffed and the farmers there are in a prosperous condition. Take the condition of the farmers in England and in the Saorstát. They are in a state of bankruptcy. England is an industrial country with wonderful resources in money and is materially wealthy. Notwithstanding that fact, she is unable to save her farmers from the consequences that free trade has brought on her.
If England possessed the richest gold mines in the world she would not possess wealth as great as she possesses in her deposits of coal mines and with her huge mineral industries, her cotton factories, her ship-yards, and her banking institutions. All these require free trade for their development. In this country we have none of these. We are depending on agriculture, and the state of conditions that has made free trade possible for England and that enables her consequently to allow thousands of her farms to go derelict does not exist here. In England thousands of farms have become derelict, and they are unable to sell them. But the English people have wealth enough to allow those farmers to go out of business. The Saorstát is in a different position, and we here must secure that our industries are preserved by applying tariffs.
Deputy Heffernan yesterday laid special stress upon the fact that this was an agricultural country and he said that in the matter of protection we would have to bear in mind the economic condition of the country. He said that to produce goods here would cost us more, that the workers here are inexperienced and that we could not compete with the highly developed industries in England where the operatives were trained and that in the future it would be necessary for us to train our workers. If the people of this country are to shy at the efforts of developing their industries because of the difficulty of training operatives I do not think that we will ever go very far. Deputy Heffernan referred to the great position in England in the matter of her industries and he told us that coal and iron did not exist in this country. Well, now, I can tell him again he is wrong. I come from the County Leitrim where we have coal deposits of a fairly large character. Side by side with the deposits of coal are the iron deposits. Our mountains in Leitrim contain very rich deposits of iron. At present there are coal mines being worked and some years ago this iron mine was being worked and the factory turning out the iron and other metal was in full blast. A brother-in-law of Deputy Major Bryan Cooper recently told me in conversation that his father who was a large landowner in that part of the country had a survey made of some of his estate including those mountains in Leitrim. The engineer he brought there was a competent engineer, all the way from South Africa. The result of his investigations proved that deposits of iron of a very high standard and deposits of lead, silver, and gold existed to a very great extent. So struck was his father with the report that he sent a sample of the iron to a manufacturer in England. The manufacturer, a friend of his, reported to him that the sample showed a very high percentage of iron, much higher than had been used in his factory. Then his father said to him with a view to business: "What about developing this iron here in my own capacity or probably with some other assistance?" and the English manufacturer said to him: "You have all the possibilities, but there is this point: that if you start your factory you will be closed down in six months, for, if no other firm in the business will undertake it, I will undertake to close you down." The factory was never started. So much for our coal and iron deposits. They are very evident to a great extent in County Leitrim.
What are the patent facts with regard to agriculture? We have in this country something like 27,000 square miles of land. Some doubt the fertility of the land, and they speak of it as comparatively poor land. Very recently some farmers from this country went to Denmark, and when they saw the soil there they expressed surprise at the conditions under which Danish farmers produced such crops and made so much out of their land. We very often read in the shop windows and in advertisements of the great butter that is sent from New Zealand produced from cows fed on the finest pastures in the world. Very recently we had a few experts over here from New Zealand, and they stated that they never realised how beautiful and how rich pasturage could appear until they saw the pastures of Munster.
Notwithstanding that we have all these great possibilities in our soil, we have comparatively the smallest population to that area in any part of the civilised world. So much is that so that we have at present gone below the verge of security of 100 people to the square mile. Must there not be some reason or explanation due there? The explanation, to my mind—and it is the only explanation that anyone who has not a biased outlook on the situation can come to—is this: while we are exporting annually something to the extent of £19,000,000—I think that was the amount last year—we can never in this world hope to be anything more than in poverty. When we export our money we must necessarily send our people after it, and, with a falling population, is there any hope that the reduced population can go on bearing the strain, paying the extraordinary taxation that this country is made to bear? With a population something less than half the population of London or New York, we are bearing an overhead charge of extraordinary weight. While we export £19,000,000 for produce to other countries, do we realise that it represents an average of £7 per head of the population, including men, women and children, those in lunatic asylums, workhouses and jails, fit and unfit? Assume for a moment that some conqueror came along and enforced a payment of £19,000,000 from the 3,000,000 of people in the Saorstát. How would we regard it? What action would we take and how would we denounce such plunderers? Yet, of our own free will and choice, we are exporting that amount of money from our people and leaving them, in consequence, hungry.
Some time ago it used to be stated that, when the people were forced to leave the country, they were making way for bullocks. I wonder will those physicians who diagnosed our disease as suitable to their own outlook explain how it is that, with the decrease of our human population, our bullock population is also decreasing. That is a problem I would like them to tackle. They say the tariffs will mean increased prices. That is wrong. If the farmers get a chance of producing the requirements of the whole State, they are capable of doing it many times over. The experience of the big war proved that. When foreign stuffs came in under very great stress and in very limited quantities, the farmer proved himself to be very energetic and very able in the management of his farm, and he successfully supplied the people with food mainly raised from the farm.
The farmer also was capable of exporting a good deal of his farm produce during that same period. What was done then can be done now. The only thing the farmer requires is that something in the way of a price commensurate with the cost of production of crops should be given to him. The moment that is offered you will find him back at work, and the land at present growing grass, and productive to the least extent, will once more be tilled, employment will be given for many of the present unemployed, there will be fewer hungry in the country, and food of the right sort will be available for all. Tell the farmer that he has, at least, the protection of his home market; give him an assurance that it is his, and he will rise to the occasion.
It is again stated that wheat is a product that it is futile to attempt to grow in this country. I come from a county which contains minerals to a very great extent. To most people who know anything of the conditions of the country, it is one of the poorest, if not actually the poorest, counties in the West of Ireland. I have here a sample of wheat grown this year in that part of the country. The Minister for Agriculture may have it if he feels like examining it, or any other Deputy interested may have it. I will give you figures dealing with the cost of production of wheat in that area. It will help Deputies to form an opinion as to whether we may or may not be able to grow wheat successfully in the Saorstát. The species grown was Canadian Red Marble. It was sown rather late, and saved in a rather unfavourable harvest. The area was half an acre, and there was one cwt. of seed put down, at 2/3 per stone, a total cost of 18/-. The ploughing cost 7/6, the sowing and harrowing 5/-, the cutting 30/-, the threshing and cleaning 30/-, and the rent and rates came to 10/-, making a total of £5 0s. 6d. The value of the crop was as follows:—12 cwt. of straw at 4/- per cwt, £2 8s.; 10 cwt. of grain at 12/-, £6, making a total of £8 8s. That shows a profit.
Where would you get 4/- a cwt. for straw?
For thatching purposes it is easily obtained. Now, that is a return taken from one of the poorest soils in the whole Saorstát, and the people who state that wheat cannot be grown in this country are stating an untruth.
They are misleading the people by merely stating what has been repeated again and again by firms whose object is to retain free trade so that their ships may be employed in transporting produce from the fertile plains, which we hear so much about, in New Zealand, Canada, and the United States: If I had any hopes that any effort would be made by the Government to deal thoroughly with tariffs, I would say that, first of all, our main industry, namely, agriculture, should be given the benefit of them. I am, and I was, entirely opposed to a tariff being put on boots or other products until our main industry has been made safe through the medium of protection. Farming should first be soundly established by a system of tariffs or subsidies, preferably tariffs, and our aim then should be to develop agriculture to the extent that farmers would be able to increase production and finish their products before putting them on the market. In that way you will gradually make it possible to develop other industries. If the farmer has a secured price for his labour he will be able to finish his stock here and have them slaughtered in this country rather than export them as stores. The result would be that if we exported dead meat those engaged in the abattoirs would find increased employment, and the hides and skins would be available for tanneries. When such industries had been built up a tax could be put on boots, but when you tax boots now you put a burthen on the farmers and farming is taxed at the wrong end.
Any hopes I had that the Government was going to adopt a policy of tariffs were doomed by what I heard in the debate. President Cosgrave stated that he was frankly protectionist, but since the Government Party brought into their ranks Deputy Cooper, Deputy O'Hanlon, Deputy Gorey, and others whose attitude on these matters is well known, I have lost all hopes of President Cosgrave carrying into effect his frankly protectionist policy, or even a policy of selective protection. It may be ridiculous that Deputy Heffernan and a few other Deputies can retard what is the expressed view of the country, but that is so. With President Cosgrave's Party in the hands of these few men, one of whom, Deputy Heffernan, expressed the hope that they would dig their heels in the ground and stand against even President Cosgrave's mild tariffs, I see little prospect of tariffs being instituted during the lifetime of the present Government.
I think it is time, as there has been a long innings on the Opposition Benches, that we should examine some of the propositions which the Fianna Fáil Deputies have put before us for consideration. Deputy Lemass told us yesterday, in resounding periods, that every country in the world was protecting its industries, that industrial pre-eminence was brought to England, Germany, the United States of America, and that in the magic word protection lay the pearl of prosperity and the cure for the economic ills that would restore the fallen fortunes of this country. Let us ask the question of Deputies on the opposite Benches: was it protection that created the great industries in England?
Yes.
I will tell, with the permission of Deputy Lemass, what did create the industries of England. If there is one page in the history of the English people that deserves the consideration of this House, it is that page dealing with the English social revolution from 1815 to 1914. Any man who graduates through Trinity College, if he takes a course of economics, has to deal with that particular phase of English life and English industry. In common with others, I had to go through that particular training, and I was brought closely into touch with the question which Deputy Lemass has laid before this House. At that particular time, I may remind the House, England was highly protected. William Cobbett had been appealing for the repeal of the corn laws. Cobbett was born in an English farmhouse, bred at the tail of the plough, with a smock on his back, practically from birth. He strove under protection for twenty years to get possession of his holding, he saved farthings and halfpennies from his scanty earnings. He had to do without his dinner. He declared that England contained the most miserable people that ever trod the earth. He also said that there must be a spirit of independence infused into the workers of England or else there could be no hope for the country. Cobbett founded the Fourth Estate, and the cry was raised, "Liberty or Death." In 1827 the first glimmerings of free trade into the policy of England began. After a struggle of ten years the corn laws were repealed, and, instead of being protectionist, England became a free trade country. What was the result? It turned agricultural England into a great industrial country.
I think it would be more relevant if the Deputy quoted Cobbett on the Coronation Oath, which a Deputy on the Government Benches defended.
I am the sole judge of relevancy. The Deputy is quite in order.
I pointed out at the beginning that I intended to deal with the arguments put forward from the opposite side of the House, and if I am out of order the whole arguments put forward by Fianna Fáil Deputies are completely out of order. I was pointing out that after ten years of struggle in England, free trade was established, with the result that in thirty-three years there was an increase in income of twenty-six million pounds per annum, her population rose from ten to forty-one millions, and her production was increased ten-fold.
If the Deputy had read the history of England prior to 1815 he would have learned the manner in which the power and prosperity of England had been developed from the stage they were in then. If power in Ireland was as great as it was in England in 1815, and if Ireland owned a great mercantile marine such as England, I would be glad to listen to the arguments on free trade.
Mr. BYRNE
I do not think the arguments I have laid before the House have been one bit affected by the interposition of Deputy Lemass. The fact remains that England, up to that period, was clearly a protectionist country, and that from the time she ceased to be protectionist she increased her income by £26,000,000 per annum, her population rose from 10,000,000, to 41,000,000, and her production increased ten-fold. The great Lord Shaftesbury exclaimed: "What a nation this is! What materials for happiness and power!" Let us get down to the bedrock of facts; protection did not create the great industries of England. They sprang into existence under the influence of free trade. When Deputies on the opposite Benches are anxious to misquote historical facts I think it is the duty of Deputies on this side to see that they cannot carry that out.
Would the Deputy mention the industries that developed under free trade?
Mr. BYRNE
I am dealing with a large subject in a short space of time, and I think before I have finished I will have dealt very effectively with Deputy Lemass. I wonder does the Fianna Fáil Party ever realise the great economic truth that the economic importance and internal prosperity of smaller countries is measured practically and relatively by the importance of its foreign trade? I think it is time for the Fianna Fáil Deputies to realise the truth of this economic proposition. I would wish to point out, despite the assertions of Deputy Lemass, that there are free trade countries in Europe, and that every country is not hastening to protection. We have free trade prosperous Belgium, and free trade prosperous Holland. It was through free trade that England became the workshop of the world. Its prosperity grew through free trade. I would also remind the House that tariffs are only one factor in the prosperity of any country. Fianna Fáil would have us believe that it is a universal panacea for the redress of all economic evils under which we suffer.
A DEPUTY
No, only one.
Mr. BYRNE
I suggest from the arguments put forward that is the only interpretation people of commonsense can put on the point of view expressed by Fianna Fáil. I suggest if that policy is followed to its logical conclusion there can be nothing but the greatest disaster before the country. We have been delivered curtain lectures about protection in America, and how it has worked. The Deputy who has sat down has told us that the farmers of America are exceedingly prosperous. I contradict that. They are almost in as bad a condition as the farmers in Ireland, and a Deputy on my right says they are worse. When America is represented to us as the model on which we should frame an economic policy to rescue the country from its depression, I would say that there is no analogy between a huge continent like America and a tiny island like Ireland. There are 48 States in America some of which are larger than the whole area of France. Do Deputies opposite realise when they claim all these merits for protection in America that in America there is a huge market and there exists a complete system of free trade? The Americans are all right for dumping their goods here, but when they have that huge market behind them they can afford to do so. The population of this country is only a shade over 3,000,000, and we are asked to follow a policy similar to that of the United States, where there is a huge home market. It is the first duty of every country to protect its home market. Where you have small markets you must exercise the greatest care. As I have already pointed out, in the case of smaller countries the external trade of the country should be maintained. I was wondering when Deputy Lemass was holding forth to our admiration all the great countries of the world why he did not tell us something about Australia. I wonder was the omission accidental or deliberate? It has been proved that protection has been a complete and absolute failure in Australia.
Australia taxed machinery and chemicals, and placed a duty of £3 per ton on bark. It even protected labour, and piece work was abolished. Taxation in Australia rose from £954,000 to £3,914,000. Seven years ago a new Tariff Act intensified the degree of protection then existing. In 1921 the Industries Preservation Act was passed to protect home manufacturers from the competition of Germany and other countries whose currency had depreciated. The cost of production rose, capital became unnecessarily high, home goods offered no advantage over foreign, and export trade became well-nigh impossible. A Tariff Board was set up to examine the effects of tariffs upon primary production and the cost of living. It consisted of one Government nominee, one representative of primary producers and two business men. The report has now been furnished, and it is a damning indictment of the whole system of protection. The report states that tariffs instead of improving home industries have resulted in stagnation, that they have increased the cost of production, and that they have increased the cost of living. Deputies on the opposite side, like innocent lambs, tell us that tariffs will not raise the cost of living. I had an experience that, perhaps, no Deputy on Fianna Fáil side had, of passing through in 1906 the whole campaign waged in England on the question of tariffs.
I learned something about it at first hand. Deputy Lemass is still a young man and when he has a little more experience, as he has already been told from these benches, his views on tariff matters, and the short cut to prosperity that appears to be the policy of his Party, will, no doubt, be considerably altered. Germany has also been held up to us as a guide as to what has been done through methods of protection. I am now analysing only the arguments that have been put forward from the opposite side. Any man who has ever made a study of the economic policies of European countries must admit that the policy of Germany has been always frankly opportunist. When the period of tariffs prevailed Germany started a tariff policy. When the era of free trade returned, Germany stood wholly by free trade. To-day, a system exists in Germany which is one of the most mixed systems in any country in Western Europe. Why will not Deputies on the opposite side realise facts before they attempt to ram them down our necks without examination?
I think it was Deputy O'Kelly who asked us to get back to the doctrine of Griffith. I say that we are following that doctrine at the present time. Arthur Griffith speaking of protection said, "Protection does not mean the exclusion of foreign competition. It does not mean that we should pay a higher profit to the Irish manufacturers but that we should not stand by and see them crushed." I hear a lot of "hear, hears" to that. What is the policy of the Government? The policy of the Government is not to bolster up inefficiency or to refuse help to the efficient Irish manufacturers. The policy of Deputies on the opposite side ranges from full-blooded protection to prohibition. In other words it is the antithesis of the policy we support. It means simply that, however inefficient and however incapable, however uneconomic, a proposition may be, provided it belonged to this country it is going to be bolstered up by full-blooded protection or, if necessary, by prohibition.
We have been told that we should have a tariff on flour. If anybody who listened to the analysis of that particular subject by the Minister for Industry and Commerce could then hold on to such a theory, all that can be said is that the economic salvation of the country is not safe in his hands. The Minister pointed out that a tariff on flour means an extra £300,000 on the cost of bread in this country. He pointed out that a tariff would mean the possible employment of 700 people, but on the other hand, the likely unemployment of 3,000. These are the remedies that are propounded for the prosperity of this nation. I wonder would Deputy Lemass, who is a Dublin man like myself, come down with me to the North Wall, and tell the workers there that £86,000 that they receive in wages is going to be swept away by this policy of the prohibition on flour. I wonder what answer the Deputy would get.
I would not tell them that. The wheat would still be coming in.
Mr. BYRNE
I suggest to the House that the transport workers made it clear and distinct that they do not stand for a tariff on flour. They appeared before the 1923 Commission and declared against it. Another Deputy reminded us about the imports of barley. What was the evidence given by maltsters before the 1923 Commission? At that Commission the maltsters stated that a duty on barley would cripple their industry, which depended on brewers and distillers, whose trade was mainly export. They said that imports of barley were necessary, and that a duty would cause the brewers to erect their plants outside Ireland. That is another means of solving the economic depression put forward by the Deputies on the opposite benches.
Did it ruin them in 1919?
If there was an election in the South City to-morrow I would have no hesitation in going on the hustings up to Guinness's brewery, in Deputy Lemass's constituency, and telling the workers there what his policy was, and I feel sure that when the result was announced Deputy Lemass would not occupy quite so high a position as he did on the last poll. I challenge contradiction by any of the economists on the opposite benches of this statement: that there is only one thing that justifies the imposition of a tariff. A tariff can only be justified where it can be shown to the nation as a whole that we gain more by it than we lose.
Deputy O'Kelly advocated increased tillage. He said: "Grow your own wheat; do as you did before." I asked him "Can you grow it economically?" and he said "Yes." Let us face the economic facts. We cannot produce wheat economically. France is a grower of wheat. Her soil is more suitable for the cultivation of wheat than the soil of Ireland. Yet every bushel of wheat France produces is produced at a loss. I should hope, if the Fianna Fáil Party ever obtained the reins of Government, whatever policy they may adopt—and I will give them credit for being perfectly sincere in their efforts to alleviate the disabilities under which the country is now suffering—that they will, at least, consider and profit by the fortunes and misfortunes of other countries. It appears to me that the Fianna Fáil Party wants to work against the laws of economics and against the laws of nature. I wonder if any of the economists who bring their primer into this House to read, have read or heard of the economic law called the Law of Comparative Returns. The Law of Comparative Returns means that if by the exchange of one product you can buy another product more cheaply, then you are obtaining that product by exchange and barter and not by purchase. For the benefit of some Deputies whose economic heresies led me to believe that they have never heard of that law I took the trouble of explaining it, and I would point out that the Channel Islands—a fact that may not be known to the Fianna Fáil economists—can grow wheat cheaper than any country in the world, of course recognising their limitation as to area. Do they grow wheat or do they buy wheat?
Are they protected?
Mr. BYRNE
That point does not arise. I am dealing now with an economic law. Do they grow wheat or do they buy wheat? They buy wheat, simply because they can obtain it cheaper by bartering fruit, which they can grow in such abundance.
We do not grow fruit.
It appears to me that we will grow nothing under Fianna Fáil. We will be going against the laws of nature, against the wishes of the farmer, and against the inclination of the business man, and we are told that the country is behind Fianna Fáil. Once the policy that they advocate is made clear to the people—and it will be the duty of Deputies on these benches to make that policy clear— there will be a complete change in the election results of the future. I will say one word now as a plain, practical business man, who knows a little from experience of the actions and reactions of tariffs upon this country. The Party to which I belong has levied a tax upon furniture. I do not know what number of hands have gained increased employment by the levying of that tax, but I can state that it means that every business man engaged in the furniture trade needs fresh capital for the carrying on of his business.
Why?
I will explain why. Formerly the people in the furniture trade had four, five, or even ten millions of capital placed at their disposal by English manufacturers, with lengthy periods for repayment, so that they could repay almost as they pleased. Now, if an English manufacturer offers a man engaged in the furniture trade here £300 or £400 worth of furniture, that man says: "I cannot afford to buy it. Before I put that furniture into the warerooms I have to take out £100 cash." That is one of the actions and reactions that arise under tariffs. The opposite side of the House appears to think that tariffs are simply a short-cut to prosperity, but the men who have to deal with actual facts as they exist know that if there is one question more complicated, more difficult, than another, it is the question of the imposition of tariffs and the changing of the economic policy of the country.
I would remind Deputies opposite that Irish industries are not young and, therefore, that the infant industry argument, which many tariff reformers are so fond of promulgating, does not apply to them. The Fiscal Commission of 1923 stated that the decline of Irish industries was due, firstly, to a lack of modern methods; secondly, to defective transport, and thirdly, to the absence of industrial power. The Government has made great efforts to remedy that third essential through the creation of industry in the country by embarking upon the Shannon scheme. I suggest that it is up to the Irish manufacturers to co-operate and to do their share in restoring to this country some of the prosperity that it has lost. That can be done by the adoption of modern methods, by the adoption of up-to-date machinery, by a system of costings, by putting their shoulders to the wheel, and not by relying upon a whole-hog policy of protection or prohibition.
took the Chair.
It is quite evident that there is a very sharp difference of opinion between the two principal Parties in the House upon the question of tariff reform and free trade. I do not propose to continue the argument on those lines because I do not know enough about the matter, but I think we are all agreed that where we have industries which are capable of producing an article or articles as cheaply and as well as imported articles in face of fair competition, they should be protected. Some years ago there was a large distilling trade in the country. I would like to know where that distilling trade is now? At least three or four distilleries have been put out of action within the last five or six years, and I think that is largely due to the fact that Scotch whiskey is allowed into the country to compete with the Irish product. The distilling trade must have given a great deal of employment and it must have used a considerable quantity of home-grown grain. From what I can recollect I do not think that the Minister for Finance is very sympathetic towards the distilling trade, but perhaps he would consider the possibility of keeping that old-established industry at least on its legs. There is another industry which employed labour on a very large scale, and that is the fertiliser industry. I am told that about 100,000 tons of fertilisers are used in the Free State each year, and of this between 30,000 and 40,000 tons are imported, or, as a Deputy said a few moments ago, dumped into the country. One factory in Dublin, the Ballybough factory, has already been shut down, and I am told that unless some help is given to this industry, other works will also be closed. The fertilisers that come here from Belgium and Holland are really the surplus products of those countries, and they can be sent in here at very much under what they cost to produce. There is another industry which I would like to speak of, and that is the soda-water industry. I know for a fact that we are capable of producing all the soda-water and other mineral waters, like lemonade and ginger beer, that are consumed in the Free State. There is a tax on soda-water, but there is no preference given to Irish products——
There is. There is actually a tariff, that is, the excise duty and the customs duty, and not equal at all, and there is protection in that way.
If there is a preferential duty against foreign soda-water I am afraid that it cannot be sufficient, because we do not make Perrier or Apollinaris Water here. I am not referring to those; I am referring to soda-water and lemonade. The Government have been very good in fostering other industries, without very much success, I am afraid. I allude to the bottle works in Ringsend. I think the Government guaranteed about £60,000 that was put into that industry. These bottle works are only capable of producing a certain class of bottle.
I do not think it is fair that users of bottles in this country should be taxed for the white bottles and other things of that sort, which cannot be produced at Ringsend. I am also told that ordinary wine bottles in London cost about 19/- a gross, and here they cost 31/- a gross. Yet I am told that this company is going into liquidation, or is in liquidation. I do not know a great deal about the subject of free trade or tariff reform, but I would ask the Government to consider sympathetically the keeping together of the few industries that we have which formerly were successful.