When the House adjourned I was developing an argument which was founded upon an examination of independence in giving judgment by the Tariff Commission.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.
PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION OF TARIFF COMMISSION.
Debate resumed on the following motion and amendment:—
"That the Dáil is of opinion that the Tariff Commission, as at present constituted, is unsuitable for dealing expeditiously with applications received for the imposition of tariffs and should be replaced by a Commission, consisting of five members who should have a knowledge of agricultural and industrial conditions (of whom one should be a qualified accountant), appointed by the Executive Council with the approval of the Dáil, and to hold office for a stated period;
That the Commission, thus constituted, should have power to investigate the conditions existing in any industry in regard to its need for protection against foreign competition and should make recommendations to the Executive Council as to how the benefits derived from the measure of protection afforded to any trade can be shared by the consumers.
That for the purposes of its inquiries the Commission should be empowered to enforce the attendances of witnesses and to examine them on oath;
That the Commission report to the Executive Council which shall publish such reports within three months of their presentation if so requested by the Commission—Deputy Lemass.
Amendment:—
To delete all words after the word "opinion" in the first line and add the words:—"that the Tariff Commission Act should be amended so as to provide that the members constituting the Commission shall devote their whole time to the work of the Commission;
That the Commission constituted after amendment of the Act should have power (in addition to the powers given by the existing Act):—
(1) on the submission of proposals by or through the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Lands and Agriculture or on its own initiative, to investigate the position of any industry and the possibilities of fostering such industry or protecting it against foreign competition;
(2) to report on the probable effect of methods of assisting and protecting any industry by methods other than customs duties;
(3) to report on the safeguards required or desirable to ensure a satisfactory standard of working conditions for employees in any industry to which assistance or protection may be given."—Deputy Tomás O Conaill.
I had for a period of roughly ten minutes examined the actual Tariff Commission and the relations which existed between a Tariff Commission so constituted and an Executive of this House as illustrated by the actual conduct of an existing Executive. On two occasions different Deputies in this House found difficulty in seeing whether what I was saying was or was not in strict relation to the question at issue. I think it happened on three occasions. On those three occasions the Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruled that I was in order and instructed me to proceed. I propose now to continue that line of argument and, having regard to the fact that this Committee as now constituted is a judicial Committee, to examine the relations of the Executive towards the independence of such a Committee as illustrated by the actual activities of the existing Executive. I have already shown that in relation to two questions which were before that Commission definite interference was made by members of an existing Executive. I want to show you, in relation to other courts and the judgments and opinions and expressions in relation to facts and law of other courts, that the customary habit, judging by merely an illustration of the actual activities of members of the existing Executive, was that the Executive should interfere with the work and express judgments and opinions in relation to the judgments and acts of courts.
The Deputy must be clear that members of the Executive have not expressed in this House any views upon the acts and judgments of courts.
I am continuing precisely the argument which, for ten minutes under the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, was in order in this House.
I am not adverting as to whether or not a particular argument was in order. What I am adverting to is the statement of the Deputy that it has been the practice of Ministers to, I think he said, object to the acts and judgments of judicial bodies.
I did not say that.
Will the Deputy repeat what he did say?
No, I could not. We will find it in the official records of the House.
In so far as the Deputy's remarks mean that either a Minister or any other Deputy in the House passed any reflection upon the judgment of any court of this country, the Deputy's statement is completely at variance with the known facts, whether his statement in that form or any other form be found in the official reports or not. I want the Deputy to be quite clear on this: it has not been the practice in this House for anybody, Minister or otherwise, to discuss or to criticise the judgments of our courts. That has not been the practice, and the statement of the Deputy that it has been the practice is completely at variance with the facts.
I propose to continue precisely along the line of argument which, for ten minutes under the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, was in order.
I am not adverting to the line the Deputy took under the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The Deputy has made the statement that it is the practice here of certain Deputies to criticise the judgments of our courts in debates. I want him to withdraw that statement.
When I have read what I have actually said in the records of the House, if there is anything that I have said which is wrong I will freely and willingly be anxious to withdraw it.
The Deputy must withdraw now any statement which, in the judgment of the Ceann Comhairle, has been made and is wrong.
I withdraw any statement which I made which was in the judgment of the Ceann Comhairle wrong. That is his ruling and I obey it.
This is verging on what I can only call tomfoolery, and I do not propose to enter into a competition with the Deputy in tomfoolery. There are certain things which he presumes to say which, as already reported, are completely out of order. I want him to recognise, not in the vague but in the concrete, that these things are out of order. They must be withdrawn and must not be repeated. I do not want to engage with the Deputy in an argument on that question, but I want him to withdraw the statement that criticism of the courts was allowed in this House at any time.
I withdraw whatever statement the Ceann Comhairle says I should withdraw.
I now call on the Deputy to discontinue his speech.
Right.
Shall I put the amendment?
What exactly are we at now?
I sympathise with Deputy de Valera's difficulty in this particular instance. We are discussing a motion by Deputy Lemass on the question of the Tariff Commission and an amendment by Deputy O'Connell in private members' business appearing as Item No. 3 on the Order Paper.
The debate which we have just been listening to has been marred by certain remarks which were directed towards me. I dealt with those remarks yesterday, and do not purpose dealing with them to-day. I now come to consider the question under discussion. There are really two questions, because the difference between Deputy O'Connell's amendment and Deputy Lemass's motion are not very broad. In form indeed they are very distinct, because the motion by Deputy Lemass is a motion to set up a committee, and in form it is a motion to repeal an Act of the Oireachtas. Deputy O'Connell's amendment differs from that. His amendment is, that in the opinion of the House a certain existing Act should be amended. There is a distinct difference in the form of the two—the motion and the amendment. One appears to me to be entirely within ordinary Parliamentary procedure, while the other appears to me to say the least of it, very unusual. I welcome, however, this motion by Deputy Lemass for one particular reason. It appears to me to show a very considerable mental growth in Deputy Lemass since he came into this House. I have a clear recollection of the first time that I heard Deputy Lemass speak here. Though I do not propose to quote his exact words, I remember him stating that he and his Party had a completely-thought-out programme for the settlement of every single economic difficulty which faced this country. He left us under the impression that the Fianna Fáil army, like the French army in 1870, were ready to march down to the last shoe lace.
Might I ask if the Minister is quoting the exact words of Deputy Lemass?
I am not quoting the exact words, but does the Deputy say that such a suggestion was not made?
I do not believe that the statement of the Minister is exactly correct.
The Minister is not attributing a statement to Deputy Lemass about the Army. That is a metaphor.
That is not the point. He is attributing a statement to the Deputy which no individual or set of individuals would possibly make unless they were fools.
Does Deputy de Valera say that such a statement was not made? However, I will not continue that line of argument as Deputy Lemass is not here, but I will resume it when he arrives. Since I observe that Deputy Lemass has now arrived, if I have in any way misquoted or misinterpreted him, he will set me right. What I stated was that Deputy Lemass told us, either on the occasion of his first or second speech in this House, that his Party had thought out a complete economic programme down to its last details for the regeneration of this country.
It was on an election platform that that was said.
No; it was in this House. Deputy Lemass can say whether that is accurate, and if it is inaccurate, I will not pursue the matter further.
I do not recollect having made that statement, but the official records can be looked up.
There is a considerable difference between that statement of the Minister and the statement originally made.
No; no difference substantially. I did not at any time profess to give the words of Deputy Lemass. I gave the impression that was left on my mind by Deputy Lemass's words, but as it has been said, it can be looked up in the Official Reports. Deputy Lemass, in his opening speech, I think, rested his case largely upon two propositions. One of them was that this existing Committee had not power in itself to originate discussions. That he put in the forefront of his argument; it has not power to originate discussions. That is so. This Committee was set up for a definite purpose, to consider the question as to whether tariffs should or should not be applied to certain industries, and it was then considered that those tariffs should be applied on the report of that Commission as manufacturers actually engaged in manufacture went to the Tariff Commission and asked for protection.
I wish here to diverge one moment because this Commission has been called a judicial committee. It is not a judicial committee. A judicial committee is a committee which makes up its own mind and which delivers judgment. If this were a judicial committee, then the duty of this committee would be to say that such and such a tariff must be imposed. That is not the duty of this committee. The policy of this country must be settled not by committees, but must be settled by the Dáil, by the elected of the people. The responsibility is not upon any commission that is set up. The responsibility is, and the responsibility should be, upon the elected of the people. That is precisely the nature of the Committee which has been set up by the statute of 1926. It is the duty of the Commission to examine evidence which is brought before it, to make up its mind upon that evidence fairly and honestly, and then, not to deliver judgment, but to make a report to the Executive Council, for the Executive Council in its judgment, and finally for the House, in its judgment, to act upon or not to act upon accordingly as is thought fit. It has been said in this House that civil servants ought not be allowed to be on this Committee. It has been stated, and freely stated, that civil servants have been tampered with by members of the Executive Council. That is not so. It is, in my opinion, to attack the Civil Service and the gentlemen who are members of the Civil Service, to say that such a thing could happen.
The Executive Council are often attacked. We are ready for attack. We do not mind attack; we are able to defend ourselves. Civil servants are in quite a different position. The Civil Service and civil servants are not members of the House. They cannot answer in this House attacks which are made upon them here. To say that they would allow themselves to be tampered with by any Executive Council is to bring a charge of personal dishonesty and personal corruption against members of the Civil Service. What else is it? What other way can you regard it? If there was in this country a dishonest Executive endeavouring dishonestly to tamper with civil servants in the discharge of their duties, such as they would have to perform on a committee like this, if they were told by a dishonest Executive to make a dishonest judgment, would they be honest men if they did so? And yet that charge is levelled against them. No honest man would be prodigal of his own honour. No honourable man, at the bidding of any person, will do a dishonourable act. Yet you are asked to believe that civil servants have been tampered with, have been willingly tampered with, and have acted under undue persuasion.
Let me return now to the point at which I left off a few moments ago— that there is no power to originate in this Committee. It is not within the scope of the Committee that there should be, and if Deputies had read the debate which took place when the Act of 1926 was being introduced they would know that that matter had been fully and entirely gone into. Deputy Lemass should bear in mind that there were debates in this House before he became a member of the House. There were great men before Agamemnon. This matter was fully and entirely threshed out in those debates. If there is an entirely new industry which is possible of being established in this country, then that would not go before the Tariff Commission. If, in the opinion of the Executive Council, who are responsible for governing and responsible for shaping the policy and directing the government of this country, a new industry should be established, then the proper course is to set up a second tribunal to investigate that and consider it carefully.
As we know, the most heavily protected industry in this country at present—protected not by a tariff but by a bounty—is the sugar industry. We heard all about the sugar industry from Deputy Lemass and various other Deputies this morning. That was not set up in response to a tariff commission. That is entirely a new industry set up independently of any commission, and the question as to whether a new industry of that nature should or should not be set up in this country is a question which would be more correctly deliberated upon and decided upon by a special tribunal set up for that purpose than by this Tariff Commission which considers the ordinary applications of existing industries to have the proceeds of their labour defended against undue foreign competition.
Another argument which Deputy Lemass put forward was, that this Tariff Commission was constituted of men who are not whole-time officers, and that, in consequence, matters are not being discussed as quickly, and decisions are not being arrived at as quickly, as he would desire. This tariff question is a big question and an important one. Tariffs have the habit of acting in one direction and reacting in another. Tariffs must be imposed after the most careful deliberation, or else not imposed. The question as to whether any industry should or should not be protected is a question which should be thought out most carefully and most deliberately. It is not a question upon which any rushed decision should be arrived at. The utmost care and the utmost deliberation are the things which are required in imposing tariffs. Before interfering with the ordinary normal trading between nation and nation, or individual and individual, you must be perfectly satisfied that you are doing good and that you are not doing harm. In order to come to that conclusion, you must weigh up the matter in every single one of its bearings, and you must not come to hasty or ill-judged decisions.
We have here an existing tariff commission, a commission which is thinking out steadily and slowly, to a well-judged and well-balanced conclusion, the arguments for and against each tariff which comes before it. That is far better than that there should be rushed discussions, rushed decisions and judgments made which are practically impossible to reverse. Because once you protect an industry, even though you afterwards see that the protection of that industry has reactions elsewhere, that the result of the protection is not helpful to the country as a whole, as was desired, but is more baneful in other directions than helpful in the one towards which it was primarily directed, taking off that tariff becomes a matter of extreme difficulty. Extra moneys will have been invested, extra risks will have been run in the protected industry, and cries would immediately arise that an injustice was being done. This question of tariffs has been grappled with in this country in a satisfactory fashion. A tribunal which has given, I believe, to the majority of the people entire satisfaction has been set up, is deliberating, is doing good work for the country, and there is no reason why either its constitution or its personnel should be altered at the moment.
We have listened with great interest to the magnificent plea which the Minister for Justice has put up for the civil servants. He accuses the Fianna Fáil Party of charging the members of the Tariff Commission and of the Civil Service generally of dishonesty. I might as well say that the Civil Service, when they publish a periodical and devote a column or two to describing the tremendous inconvenience, trouble and expense that Deputies on this side are putting the State to in asking questions, are impugning members of this Party. The case is just as apposite. The Minister has stated on several occasions that we were charging the Executive Council with having tampered with the Tariff Commission. The origin of the Tariff Commission is too well known to the members on this side of the House, who are interested in this question, to bear out the Minister's allegation. We know that when the policy of protection was first mooted the associates of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party—the new alliance which it had formed for itself —were very anxious that the protection policy should not be gone on with. There was fortunately a strong national element in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party which wanted a definite policy for the protection and development of Irish industries. That element gathered strength throughout the country by its propaganda and by the fact that it stood on the old Sinn Fein platform of a self-contained and a developing Ireland. Therefore, when a crisis was likely to emerge, and when the Cumann na nGaedheal Party was divided in its counsels, and the new alliance and the new people who had joined it were anxious that no steps should be taken by the Government to interfere with British trade control of this country, with the British distributors, and the control that British trade interests held here, this Tariff Commission was set up. It was expected by the national element that it would be a commission independent of political influence, which would calmly and judiciously examine the whole problem of the industries of the country, and take as its foundation a definite programme for the prevention as far as possible of the importation of foreign articles into this country; not that the Tribunal or Commission would take as its basis that the British fiscal system still existed here; that we were only going to depart from it in certain exceptional circumstances, and that any industry which sought protection would have to be put upon its trial in public, would have to prove its case as an isolated industry before it could get assistance.
As a matter of fact, the Tariff Commission themselves have said quite recently that it is impossible for isolated industries to put up a case, that the whole industry and agriculture of the country is inter-dependent, and, in the words of Mr. Whelehan, one of the members of the Tariff Commission: "You do not know where one industry ends and another begins." All the more reason for knowing definitely what was the policy behind this Tariff Commission, what was the Government's idea. Were they definitely out to accept the protectionist idea, or were they simply establishing a stop-gap, which they are now modifying because the altered circumstances in the country and the presence of this Party in the House have made them advance from experimental to what they call selective protection? Selective protection we are all in favour of. It has never, I think, been contended by anybody that protection should cover raw materials, or that a tariff should be put upon them. But what we are interested in is to know what is the policy which these civil servants, this Tariff Commission, must have in mind and which must considerably influence them. What is the exact policy of the Government? Does it stand for protection or does it not?
The nomination of the Tariff Commission was made by three Ministers. The Ministers may have made the best choice possible, and the three civil servants selected may be the very best men possible for the job. But other countries have seen fit in setting up tariff boards, as in the case of Canada and Australia, to include representatives of trade and commerce. In this country, I think, any Deputy who approaches the question with an open mind will agree that civil servants cannot, in the nature of things, have the same knowledge of conditions in the country as an independent representative of the agricultural industry or of commerce generally would have.
Therefore Deputy Lemass's proposal that the Tariff Commission should not be confined to civil servants, but should include representatives of trade and industry and agriculture, is one that deserves support. The question of the independence of civil servants in dealing with this matter is a very important one. We know that in tackling protection it is not the cost of living that is the really important question. The Minister for Finance, speaking upon the question of protection, spoke at great length of the burden that would be put upon the consumer under a protectionist policy. Strange that in every other country in the world that is not accepted as a sufficient argument against protection. We know that there are other elements in the situation. There is chiefly the freemasonry of interest between the bankers and the importers, the shipping interest and all the rest of them against Irish trade and industry. These do not want Irish industries to develop. They want to maintain England's hold here, and accordingly they are sending flour into this country at a lower price than they are selling it in Liverpool. Yet we hear Deputies getting up here and suggesting that the claim of the Irish flour millers is unfair and unjust and likely to put an undue cost on flour when they know that for very many years the English flour milling industry has been exporting flour to this country at a price probably below their own cost of production. That is a matter that ought to be considered. There is, further, the question of the exportation of our population and the drain on our wealth. Are we definitely in favour of the present policy under which the land is being depopulated and our industries are being crushed by foreign competition? If we are to endeavour to put a stop to that we must definitely stand for a rigid protectionist policy.
The Labour amendment suggests that it ought to be the duty of the Tariff Commission to look into the question of working conditions. I take it that one of the primary objects of the Tariff Commission would be to see that foreign dumping combines and concerns could not continue to dump their materials in this country, which, if allowed to continue, must inevitably mean that the Irish farmer will be reduced to the same standard of living as the Russian who is producing cheap barley, or that the Dublin operative will be reduced to the same standard of living as the worker in the factories where English shoddy is made and sent to this country, or that the producers of bacon will be reduced to the same standard of living as the Chinese.
And that reminds me that the Ministry in their statements in this House have given the show away on themselves and have proved that they have not approached this question judicially, and have not kept an open mind upon it, and that in the nature of things the Tariff Commission cannot be independent because the issue to them must appear already pre-judged. On a certain celebrated occasion when this question was first being discussed in the country the President referred to the business men of Dublin as old fossils and antiquated furniture.
I think the speech was made in the House and the Deputy ought to quote it. Is he quoting a statement in the House or in the country?
I withdraw it.
I think the exact statement was antique furniture. It is well known.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce made a definite statement here that if a tariff was imposed on flour a certain industry would leave the city. It was shown in the debate here before the adjournment that that statement had not been made by a representative of the firm. The statement that was made was that if there were fresh restrictions put upon them they would have to consider the question of leaving Dublin. It was pointed out that the firm could receive special treatment, that they could receive a rebate, and that special arrangements could be made to deal with their case. But the Minister for Industry and Commerce came here and definitely quoted that as an argument against the protection of flour. I need not go into his reference which, in my opinion, was in the worst possible taste, about the slovenliness of certain business men, who are not satisfied with the findings of the Commission. Then we had a long string of phrases referring to interests, concessions, interested parties and disinterested parties. Deputy Gorey, who was a disinterested party when he was leader of the Farmers' Party, when under some strange influence he gave up the protectionist idea which he held when he first came into this House, is now a person looking for special concessions and an interested party because he is looking for a tariff on bacon.
Of course, we are really discussing the Tariff Commission rather than the question of tariffs. I let the Deputy go very far on the general question.
There is the important point that the Executive Council will not refer to the Tariff Commission any case for protection for an industry; representation must be made by a body of persons who substantially represent those engaged in the industry, and if such representation is made the Minister may, in his wisdom, refer the matter to the Tariff Commission. What is the position of the farmers on this matter? Is the Minister for Agriculture to represent them? Is the Farmers' Party, that "nucleus of enlightened opinion," as Deputy Heffernan called it——
There is no question about that.
Since Deputy Gorey left it.
——to decide the matter? There was at one time an Agricultural Council in existence which was entitled to speak with some authority on behalf of the farmers. At present there is no such body, and because the farmers had the audacity to call a grain conference, under the auspices of the County Committees of Agriculture. Deputy Gorey is very worth that certain gentlemen put forward certain proposals there. One proposal was put forward there which could not be considered by the Tariff Commission as at present constituted, a question that will have to be tackled somehow if the industry is to be put on proper footing. That is the question of the provision of granaries and of finding facilities for the growers of barley and cereal crops. That proposal was put forward by members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party themselves; it was passed by the grain conference, and it is a question in which every farmer must be interested. Still, it is at present quite outside the scope of the Tariff Commission. I can see no reason why, in the same way as the Government has given a guaranteed price to the beet industry and has endeavoured to bring the dairying industry to a point where a guaranteed price will be possible, it ought not also to work towards the policy of giving a guaranteed price to the Irish farmer for his produce.
The whole discussion in this House on the question of the Tariff Commission has been concerned, not with the interests of the farmers or the producers, but with the interests of the middlemen, the distributors. The very people who in this House talk most about the cost of living are, strange to say, themselves the biggest profiteering element, and they are the people who are grinding down the farmers. I cannot see how the Tariff Commission can ever make things right unless it is in a position to discuss this whole question of distribution in relation to farming and to put a stop to the present situation by which prices are constantly falling, taxation is increasing, and the agricultural industry is contributing an ever-increasing proportion of its income for the upkeep of the administration.
I hope that the good example we had yesterday of taking off the Whips will be followed when this motion is put to a division, and that the Deputies on the opposite benches who stand for a protectionist policy, for the protection of the farmer as well as the manufacturer, against unfair foreign competition, against dumping by foreign combines, will take their courage in their hands and stand by the policy of Arthur Griffith.
There has been an amount of subtle irrelevance about the arguments used in this debate that makes it very difficult for an ordinary person to understand what is exactly the drift of the whole matter. We started off with amendments which have for their object the setting aside of the Tariff Commission, as at present constituted, and the substitution for that of a Commission which is very vaguely and very uncertainly defined, the arguments in support of the setting up of which Commission being still more vague and uncertain. It requires a considerable amount of study to get at the real gravamen of the charges against the present Tariff Commission. One has to put aside a large number of other charges, not only against the Tariff Commission but against the Government and against things in general, before one can get at these arguments. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to Deputy Hugo Flinn, but he adopted the attitude that the Tariff Commission ought to be changed and ought to be condemned because the Government is an impudent Government, a libellous Government, a calumniating Government and, in general, a calamitous Government altogether. That is an argument that might carry a certain amount of weight in certain parts of the country and at a certain type of public meeting, but it is not an argument that should be put forward seriously in a serious discussion where a certain amount of order is supposed to be kept.
I think that Deputy Flinn was not alone in his peculiar attitude towards the subject, because Deputy Lemass himself, when he began the discussion, seemed to adopt a somewhat similar attitude. He said that there is something radically wrong with the composition of the Tariff Commission: "It is our opinion, of course, that it was not established to facilitate the imposition of tariffs, that the purpose of its establishment was mainly political." I suppose he would not agree that the purpose of its establishment was politico-economic. If these charges have anything in them, if they are really believed by the Deputies who put them forward, then there is no need for them to attack the unfortunate members of the Tariff Commission; they have a remedy against this calamitous Government and against all this impudence that they complain of, against all this discussing of political motives under economic pretences, and so on. They have the remedy of getting the majority of the people behind them and turning out this evil Government, and when they have done that they can proceed to rebuild the universe and establish the Tariff Commission as it ought to be established. But until they have, I suggest that these arguments about the impudence of the Government are totally irrelevant on this discussion regarding the rights and wrongs of the Tariff Commission.
Deputy Flinn managed to confuse the issue still further by introducing a quantity of the most perverse subtlety that I have heard for a long time in this House about the Tariff Commission being a judicial body, about matters before the Tariff Commission being sub judice, and about these matters being wrongfully made use of in this House on certain occasions. It seems to me to be a complete perversion of language to describe the Tariff Commission in that fashion—to say that it is a judicial body in the sense that the High Court, for instance, is a judicial body, and to say that matters before it are sub judice in the same sense as matters before an ordinary court are sub judice. There is no analogy whatever between the two, and arguments of that sort simply show that the Deputy's mind is either too perverse or too innocent to be able to arrive at a conclusion at all on a subject like this.
Then we had Deputy Lemass telling us how urgent is the demand in the country for protection, that "it is the agricultural community which is most urgently in need of protection at present, and it is really most urgent in its demand for it." Deputy Lemass has very frequently taken it on himself, I think more frequently than any other Deputy, to inform the House what the people of the country want. I suppose it is because he sits near the throne in a large minority Party in the House he can speak for a large minority of the people. Probably the real process he puts into operation is to look deep into his own heart and see there what is wrong about the needs and desires of the majority of the people.
We have another class of argument put forward against the Tariff Commission which is really based on the fact that it is a Tariff Commission and not something else. That is the kind of argument that seems to me to be enshrined in the second paragraph of Deputy O'Connell's amendment. He suggests that the Commission which he recommends should be empowered— the language is rather complicated, but I think the meaning is clear—"to report on the probable effect of methods of assisting and protecting any industry by methods other than customs duties." That means that the Tariff Commission is to report on the probable effect of doing something else for an industry besides the imposition of a tariff. That is to say, that it is to be something bigger than Tariff Commission. Then we have that notorious political economist, Deputy Corry, complaining about the Tariff Commission because it was not in a position to put an embargo on flour, without any reference, apparently, to any Government or anybody else, except a reference to the fact that instructions had been thundered at it by Deputy Corry. And we have, apparently, behind the whole of this objection to the Tariff Commission a subtle, vague feeling that what is really wanted is something that can be set up as a kind of dictatorship over the heads of the Executive Council and that can be used either by the Fianna Fáil Party or by various individuals in the House or in the country to carry out whatever magnificent schemes they have in their heads for the good of the country, without any reference to the Executive Council or to anybody else.
Deputy Corry has progressed so far in his economic studies that he has now decided that a tariff on flour would raise the cost of living. He thinks the remedy for that is not to refrain from putting a tariff on flour, but go further and keep flour out altogether. He says that would not raise the cost of living. I suppose the probable effect would be to lower the cost of dying in many cases, which is, possibly, the sort of thing Deputy Corry is interested in seeing happen. This class of argument and insinuation should be, I think, put on one side when discussing this question. We come now to what are in effect the only arguments, the only ones deserving of consideration at all in this matter, that have been put forward. One of these is the complaint that the Tariff Commission consists of part-time officials. Deputy Lemass thinks it would be much better for the country to have five men instead of three paid full-time salaries for doing nothing else, except considering this question of the imposition of tariffs. It seems to me that that raises some interesting speculations. It may happen— I do not say that it necessarily would happen—that the task of investigating industrial conditions and so forth, with a view to putting on tariffs, would be more than would be necessary to take up the time of these five men, and in that case I suppose the idea at the back of the Deputy's mind is that, having a certain amount of time on their hands, with nothing else to do, they would simply suggest the imposition of tariffs in order to fill up the vacuum. I must say that I cannot see what other argument has been put forward in favour of making these mand that the whole-time consideration. If the work is sufficiently big to demand that the whole-time consideration of the men engaged at present in this work should be devoted to it, I do not see that there exists any obstacle at present which prevents their whole time or a large proportion of their time being devoted to it. It seems to me very largely a question for the Government of the day. If there is a good deal of work before the Commission, the members of the Commission can be released from other duties in order to attend to that work. If not, it is a salutary thing that they should have something else to do to earn their salaries. I do not think that argument is one that need worry us very much in our attitude towards the Tariff Commission. It is merely a question of detail, like the matter of the five members instead of three which the Deputy himself seems to be willing to put to one side. It was introduced, as a matter of fact, largely because the Deputy wanted to have some alternative to the present state of affairs, and he was not very much worried what alternative he had if he had something.
The only other point, and it is by far the most important one I can see in all this, is the question of the initiative whether the initiative in going into these matters should rest with the Tariff Commission, or whether the various industrial, agricultural and other interests in the country should be compelled to formulate a case before it could be brought before the Tariff Commission, or be considered. Considering that question it seems to me that Deputy Lemass and the people who support this resolution have fallen into a very peculiar self-contradiction. Deputy Lemass says in one place:—
"It is therefore important that there should be on the Committee not merely civil servants, but men with a practical knowledge of agricultural and industrial conditions, which would make them useful members of that body."
I do not intend to go into the point about Civil Servants. I think it is a matter of even less importance than the number on the Commission. What is wanted on this Commission is that we should get men who know what they are doing, men who understand the work, and whether they are Civil Servants or not does not seem to me to matter in that regard. The point I want to emphasise in this is that the Deputy believes that these men should be men with practical knowledge of industrial and agricultural conditions. That is to say that they should not be Civil Servants but men who are either ex-farmers or ex-business men, or men actually engaged in farming or business. A little later on the Deputy says:
"We have practical experience that there is a number of industries in which those engaged in them are convinced that if they are to be developed in this country protection is needed, but who will not themselves take the initiative in demanding protection."
He therefore opposes the initiative for industrialists or agriculturalists by the argument that a large number of industrialists and agriculturalists are opposed to protection in their own interests, and in addition to that he suggests at the same time that we should remove from the Tariff Commission the civil servants who now compose it, and substitute for them agriculturalists and industrialists, who for all we may know, may be opposed to protection because they think it is against their own interests. It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot object to civil servants on the Commission and insist on putting on men with practical knowledge of industry and agriculture, and at the same time object to the fact that the initiative in seeking for tariffs is put into the hands of men with practical knowledge of industry and agriculture. That is what it amounts to.
The present law simply insures that, before the question of putting a tariff on the products of any particular industry is taken up, the men who are engaged in that industry in Ireland shall be consulted and have first voice in the matter. I am not an industrialist, but I can say that if I were, and if a question like that was being discussed, I should think that I, and people like me, had a better right to be heard and could contribute more information in regard to it than some of the political economists on the Fianna Fáil Benches, whose only qualification for discussing such matters is that they are patriots and have the good of the country deep down in their hearts.
Have you that qualification?
I am not so blatant about my qualifications as the Deputy.
Have you that qualification?
It seems to me that, reviewing all these arguments that have been put forward, they have made no case whatever for any change in the present constitution of the Tariff Commission. There is a resolution and an amendment before us, and it is my belief that if it should happen that either or both of them were accepted the Dáil would find itself under the necessity of going into the whole matter again and trying to interpret, with great difficulty, the exact meaning of the proposals before us. It seems to me that neither the resolution nor the amendment does anything like cover the whole case, or all the points at issue, or form any substitute for the Act which set up the Tariff Commission, or gives us any decent alternative to that Commission. If we are going to set aside a body which has done a considerable amount of work already, and as against the success of that work no arguments have been brought forward, we should be certain before doing so that we are going to put a better body in its stead. I do not believe that we are going to get from either the resolution or the amendment any body that will be better qualified or empowered to do better work than that which the Tariff Commission is doing at present.
I think that one of the reasons for putting forward the resolution and the amendment was a feeling of impatience, a very natural feeling. Within the past few weeks in this country we have lost, at least, two very important industries. The Cork Spinning and Weaving Factory, which at one time employed 1,000 people, with machinery valued probably at £100,000, sold that machinery the other day as scrap. I am sure that it would be small consolation to the unfortunate people who were employed there to listen to some of the arguments put forward here on both sides. Their industry is gone, but it would have been saved if some protection had been afforded to it a year or two ago. The Kilkenny Woollen Mills have closed down.
Why?
They are closed at any rate and the people there are out of employment while this country is being flooded with materials made in Scotland and in England which should have been made in Kilkenny. That is very poor consolation to the employees of that factory who are out of employment, and it would be a good thing if work could be found for them. I know something about the leather industry, and I know that in my time this country had a considerable number of tanneries. Now we have only one or two tanneries left. A tannery closed a few weeks ago in New Ross. Though it was a small industry, employing only a few men, it meant something in the way of employment. One reason why I am in favour of a tariff policy is that it would probably prevent such things as I have mentioned happening. I see the danger put forward from the other side of the House, that it might increase the cost of living, but if the cost of living did increase and if there were increased employment and increased circulation of money, it would not be a bad thing. In this country, when the cost of living was at its peak, people were better off than they are to-day— there was more money in circulation, and there was more employment. It would be better if you could bring back that state of affairs, as we are gradually going down and people are leaving the country day after day. We would be doing good work if we could speed up the operations of the Tariff Commission, and I think the resolution, if adopted, would have that effect and would tend to stop emigration.
Táimíd ag cainnt le blianta ar athbheóchaint déantúisí na hEireann agus anois, nuair atá an faill againn, is beag atá déanta ar a son. An méid atá déanta, tá toradh maith ag teacht as. Cuireadh cáin ar sguaba a bhí ag teacht isteach 'san tír tamall ó shoin. Tá céad daoine ag obair anois ag déunamh sguaba níos mó ná mar bhí roimhe seo Is maith é sin. Dá ndeánaidis a thuille d'á leitheád sin, raghadh sé chun tairbhe na tíre.
As a farmer I am opposed to the appointment of a Tariff Commission with powers to investigate the farming industry. Deputy Lemass in introducing his motion, said: "There is the agricultural industry. It is difficult to get agriculturists organised in order to submit a considered case to any tribunal. The existing organisations which pretend to serve the interests of the farmers are, of course, merely graziers' organisations, and in no sense representative of the agricultural community at all. We consider that the Commission should have power to examine the conditions existing in all phases of agricultural work and, if necessary, recommend to the Dáil that a protectionist policy should be embarked upon." They would recommend tariffs to us whether we wanted them or not. As a practical farmer I would prefer the opinion of the organisations we have to the opinions of theorists representing industrial centres as regards the medicine that is good for us. Why do they require this Tariff Commission? In the beginning of the last Session we were asked to see an Ireland with a high tariff wall built all around it. It struck me that perhaps the reason for the motion and the amendment was that there were only three members on the tariff tribunal; that they are only part-time officers and were not building quickly enough, and that a Commission of five, working whole time, would in a short period build around the country a wall that you could neither see over nor through.
As far as I am concerned, I do not want to make any charges against the personnel of the present Tariff Commission. What I want is to have them placed in a position so that they will not be showing their impotency, if one might say so, day after day. I, and also the mover of the motion and of the amendment, want to have the present Tariff Commission given more power. The Deputy who has just spoken would object to any investigations being made into the farming industry. He says he prefers to rely on the organisations they have for any advice. I think that some years ago, when inspectors were sent out from the Department of Agriculture, a similar resentment was felt by the farming community to what they now profess to feel regarding the suggestion that an examination should be held by a Tariff Commission into their industry. I believe if the farmers would only try to analyse the situation fairly they would find that it would be to their advantage that something should be done by the way of a Tariff Commission to develop their industry. Deputy Byrne the other day said that people who are running an industry know far more about it than any member of a Tariff Commission could, and that he would resent any interference with the particular industry in which he is interested. I and other people know that there are industries in this country that are being mismanaged to a terrible extent. I believe if the country is to be put in a proper position that a Commission, such as the Tariff Commission, should have power to investigate conditions under which industries are being worked.
There are people in this country who control industries who are satisfied to make a certain amount of money every year, and who only want to be able to look after themselves. They have no interest in the country as a whole, and it is because of that we ask for the Tariff Commission to give them more powers. I have been much interested in the cement industry for the last two or three years. Some ten years ago an English syndicate bought the Drinagh cement works in my county. Could anybody imagine these people asking for protection for that industry? They did not want it. They bought that industry to control the market in Ireland, and to find a better market for the products of their factories on the other side. A conference was held which was attended by the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and representatives of the Portland Cement Company, and these people asked not for protection for the cement manufactured at Drinagh but a monopoly for the English article as against the French and Belgian article, though these articles are a great deal cheaper than the English one. One must realise that in regard to many firms in this country there are certain English influences at work. We know that a number of soap factories have been purchased recently by these syndicates and we know these people will never come forward to a Tariff Commission and ask for protection for that particular industry. We do not know all the influences at work behind the scenes. When we were discussing unemployment in the debate which took place last November the question of the importation of foreign capital was referred to.
I do not propose to deal with that question now, as I suppose I would not be in order in doing so, but I wish to tell the House that in my constituency there is an agricultural implement manufacturing industry. The manager, or proprietor, of that firm was approached recently to know why he would not apply for protection. He said the reason was that if he did so some of the English people would come to Dublin, or somewhere else, and establish an industry which would do him a great deal of harm. I submit if that were to take place it would be of no benefit to the country. There is no use in providing employment in Dublin at the expense of Wexford, or vice versa. These are questions that ought to be examined carefully by any Commission set up. I believe that if the Government would try to get out of the groove they are in on this matter in paying more concern to a vindication of a policy they had in mind when they got the Bill through the Dáil rather than to the realities of the situation that confront them we would get along better. I see no reason why there should not be accomodation found between the mover of the motion, the mover of the amendment, and the Government on this issue. We must take it that everybody is anxious to see the industries of the country developed. If we approach the matter from that angle, and give the present Tariff Commission a little more power to examine every industry in the country, regardless of whether the proprietor of that industry wants it or not, I believe we will make this a better and more prosperous country in the near future.
We have been charged with the suggestion that the members of the present Tariff Commission are men of dishonour. The Minister for Justice used words to that effect. Another Deputy, Deputy Tierney, said that this Commission was not a judicial body. Section 5 of the Act says that it is a judicial body and has all the powers of the High Court. As it has those powers, and as a Minister has said that civil servants are removable at will. I think a good case has been made for substituting that body by another. The Minister for Justice also said that in cases of new industries being set up something could be done, as has been done in the case of the Carlow sugar beet factory. But what about the industries that are dying? We have been told that there is no machinery, and I believe that there is not, by which the agricultural industry could make a case for itself. I will speak about an industry about which I know something, namely, the iron industry. In the Saorstát there is practically no iron industry, and the only one we had was the manufacture of railway engines, as well as boilers and other parts of engines. About twenty years ago there were three good repair shops in Dublin. I worked in one of them myself. There were numerous craftsmen of all descriptions employed, and I also know that the principal managers of these railways were people whose interests were centred more in Leeds than in Dublin or Ireland. As in the case of the Drinagh Cement Factory, does anybody think that these gentlemen are going to come here and ask for protection for railway engines, seeing that there is no manufacturer of railway engines but the railway companies alone? The really important point in this resolution is that it will give the initiative to the Tariff Commission which it has not got at present, and I say that if the Tariff Commission does not get these powers it will simply be useless. It has been practically useless up to the present. Anyone who knows anything about railway working knows that the iron manufacture in connection with the railway industry is dying out, and the same applies to coach building. I remember coaches being built when we were loyal citizens. His Majesty King George the Fifth came over, and they built a railway coach there that could not be surpassed anywhere, and at a price that could compare with anything that could be imported. The people who run these railways are the tools of the financial gangs in England, whose representatives in this House have, up to the present, dictated the policy of the Executive Council. They would not have it otherwise. I hope we have come to the stage now when the Executive Council will shake itself free of that influence and work for the interests of Ireland and not for the interests of British Imperialism.
We are not discussing the Executive Council now.
Mr. BOLAND
I say no case has been made from the opposite benches to show that the Tariff Commission is an efficient body. I do not use that word in a personal way, but through not having the power of taking the initiative it is useless. Except it has power to investigate industries which are decaying, and which can very well be resurrected, I say it is simply useless and it is only humbug to pretend that we stand for any form of protection.
In the proposal put forward from the Fianna Fáil benches, and in the amendment put forward by the Labour Party, there are a number of points of agreement. I think the first outstanding point of agreement between the two proposals is that they both aim at setting up a whole-time Tariff Commission. There is also a similarity between the two proposals with regard to the constitution of that Committee—that it should consist of five members. Let us examine for a moment the problem that would be before such a Commission. The industries in this country are exceedingly limited. A number of those industries have already had tariffs applied to them. I do not know whether any of the Deputies have taken the trouble to inquire as to the number of industries that are left to which tariffs might be applied. That is a problem that we might have some information about when we are asked to appoint this whole-time Commission. If my knowledge of industry serves me rightly, there are only twenty to twenty-five industries left to which tariffs might be applied. For the purpose of dealing with twenty to twenty-five industries we are asked to set up a whole-time Commission of five impartial representatives to deal with the problem. Is that a reasonable proposal? I am not a lawyer, but if I were to suggest that five additional judges should be set up in the Saorstát to deal with twenty-five cases that were pending, I do not know what some Deputies on the other side would say with regard to my mentality. What would happen to this whole-time Commission when its duty would cease in the near future? Supposing we allocated a week to every particular industry and allocated these five impartial judges to deal with them, I presume that would be a fair allocation of time. That would mean that we would have work for this Commission for six months. These men are to be pensioned for all time after six months' work. That is the proposal of a Party that is going in for a reduction in expenditure—to set up a whole-time Commission for whom there is six months' work. I would like some more information on that point, and I am sure the House would like some more information put before it before it could approve of a proposal of that kind.
The next point of importance in these two proposals is that the Government should be empowered to go into any industry and to regulate the fiscal conditions that shall apply to that industry. Many Deputies in this House have spoken about the difficulty, and there is a great deal of truth in it, of getting Irish capital into Irish industry. Let us take the industry that we were discussing this morning—the beet sugar industry. Supposing the Government had contemplated, and it had been urged on the Government by an important section of the people, that they should bring in an Act empowering them to go into that particular industry and regulate the conditions governing it and interfere with its whole outlook and trade, supposing such a proposal were before the minds of those capitalists who put the money into that particular industry, does anyone think for one moment that under these conditions you will induce business men to invest a half million of capital in an industry whose business might be destroyed in a month or in three months' time? Do Deputies realise what it means to a business to upset the fiscal conditions governing that industry? It means that the whole of the money that is invested in that industry may become useless and worthless.
Is the Deputy not developing an argument for and against protection rather than dealing with the Commission that we are to get?
I am dealing with the proposals before us, and I will keep as closely as possible to these proposals. I want the Deputies to realise what is contained in those proposals before they vote on them. If we are going to have business industries in this country surrounded by this liability, that at any moment the State may walk into that particular industry, and, as I say, upset its whole business, how are we going to get money invested in industries under those circumstances, and if we cannot get money invested in these industries, how are we going to get employment for our people? The one hangs on the other. That is an aspect of this problem that I would like to see considered seriously by the House. The third proposal contained in this amendment is that the Government is to regulate the working conditions governing the industry. Every industry, as we know it to-day in this country of ours, has its conditions and wages governed by its economic surroundings. What any competitive industry can afford to pay in the matter of wages is regulated by its economic surroundings. If the State is to go in and regulate the conditions in these particular industries without any reference at all to their economic surroundings, then no industry could exist. Therefore, I say that that proposal, like the other two proposals, is impossible if we would like to see that form of development in industrial matters in this country that most of us are anxious to see. As one listened to the speeches that have been delivered on these two proposals, and bearing in mind the speeches that were delivered last session on exactly the same subject of tariffs, one was——
I am afraid that is not the subject that we have under discussion now.
It is governing the regulation of tariffs.
The House is now discussing the constitution of the Tariff Commission.
Quite so. It does appear to me that discussions of this kind are not going to help industry. These discussions not alone unsettle the surroundings of industry, but they unsettle the minds of those engaged in industry, and that is very unfortunate. I think if we could bring this particular matter that has engaged the Dáil the greater part of its time during the last six months to an end with these proposals, it would be very desirable in the interests of the country. This unsettlement is not good for any of us, and the longer it continues, I am quite satisfied, the longer its influence on industry will be felt. There is one aspect that I would like Deputies to bear in mind, and it has been referred to by a number of Deputies. They have admitted that the application of tariffs by this Commission will increase the cost of living. That has been referred to by Deputy after Deputy. I only want to say in that connection that the difference between the cost living in this country, and the cost of living in an adjoining country has reached a serious figure.
I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed on those lines.
On a point of order—
I am dealing with a point of order. The Deputy is making an argument on the lines for or against protection. He is not addressing himself to the matter before the House, which is what kind of Commission we should have to inquire into what trade or what business should or should not have protection.
With all due respect, the whole discussion so far has ranged over the question of protection, and especially from the Fianna Fáil Benches the discussion has ranged very widely indeed. I do not think you have been listening to all the discussion or you would not make such a ruling. The discussion has ranged very widely indeed over the whole matter.
I am guided in my ruling by what is before me and not by what I hear. I think that is a very safe rule. The motion and the amendment seek to set up a Commission, and how that Commission is to be constituted is what we have to consider and clearly not whether tariffs are to be imposed or are not to be imposed.
I bow to your ruling, but I must say that almost every Deputy who has spoken on the subject has dealt with this particular aspect, and I am the only speaker who has been ruled out.
One of the charges that has been most consistently made against the Executive and the Government in recent years is that of hasty legislation. Now we are discussing a motion put forward by the opposite Benches to speed up legislation on such a highly controversial subject as fiscal reform. Before the Executive accepts that motion, or before it ties itself up to speed legislation on fiscal reform, I hope it will satisfy itself that it has the bulk of public opinion behind it. Is the House satisfied that it has the bulk of the farmers of the country, really the bulk of the people, behind it? Is there any Deputy on the opposite benches who will say that the majority of the farmers are enthusiastically in favour of speeding up this legislation?
They are.
Yes.
I think the answer comes from one Deputy who is not so closely associated with farming as some of us.
I beg your pardon. They do want it.
I am a farmer, and I say that farmers are in favour of protection.
In the constituency I represent that is not the opinion. The present Commission appears to be satisfactory to most of us. Its chief fault in the eyes of the Opposition is that it is moving too slowly, that it is giving too much time and attention to this very important matter of fiscal reform. In addition we are asked to scrap this Commission and set up a Commission with the additional powers that it can on its own initiative inquire into the condition of any industry in this country which it thinks might need a tariff. If this resolution is passed, then in four or five months time we may be discussing a tariff on every industry imaginable, from darning to ship-building. One can imagine what the debates in this House would develop into if that should take place. I sincerely hope that the House will not accept that resolution. The people of this country have been too much occupied in recent years to give the necessary thought and consideration to this highly important subject. There is no apparent desire, at least amongst the members of the agricultural community, that this matter should be rushed. I leave aside altogether the question whether they desire that it should be scrapped. At any rate, there is no desire amongst the majority of the people that I represent that this matter should be rushed. Somebody said a moment ago that tariffs raise prices. I think that is an agreed maxim here.
No.
Amongst most people it is. There is only one conceivable way in which tariffs will not raise prices that I know of, and that is where conditions arise that the importer has no other market for his goods but the country he imports to. Otherwise, I think it is held by most economists that tariffs do raise prices. The position of the farmer at this moment—
I think the Deputy has got quite enough in in what he has said and cannot proceed that way.
I think some of the Deputies opposite got more liberty.
The Deputies opposite got no more liberty than others.
We are asked to scrap, I was going to say the Treaty, but Deputies opposite began by asking us to scrap the Treaty and to scrap the Government, and now, having failed to scrap either the Treaty or the Government, they want to scrap this little Commission set up by the Government.
Are they not equally sensible suggestions?
They seem to have a mania for scrapping. I only rose to say on behalf of the farmers that we see no great need for rushing this legislation. In fact if anything at all takes place we think that the machinery for the imposition of tariffs should be retarded rather than accelerated.
Deputy Boland in endeavouring to prove the inadequacy of the present Tariff Commission, referred to the fact that at one time he was engaged in the manufacture of railway engines and railway coaches, and that since his valuable assistance in that industry has been withdrawn the industry has languished and the railway engines and railway coaches are now supplied from Leeds. Just over a fortnight ago I was getting into a railway coach at Rome, the capital of Italy, a country that has a high tariff and in which the railways are controlled by the State. When getting into the coach I happened to notice that it was made in certain works. I have forgotten the name of the works. In any event I am not disposed to give the works a free advertisement, but the coach was made in Leeds. I assume that was due to the fact that Leeds was able to supply the coach at a satisfactory price. Of course, Deputy Boland would have found another reason. He would have found that Signor Mussolini, the Prime Minister of Italy, was under the influence of the hidden hand and had no power of his own and no mind of his own, and that he moved at the actuation of England.
Is the Deputy sure that he was not dreaming?
I am quite sure, and to prove it I can give the day and date and the hour at which I entered the coach. I entered the coach in Rome shortly before noon on Wednesday, the 9th February. The coach was made in Leeds and was run over the Italian railways. It is facts that should decide this question. I do not want to discuss the general question of tariffs because I am sure the Ceann Comhairle would not allow me, but I do submit that there is a little misunderstanding on this question. The speech of Deputy Dr. Ryan on the night before last shows that he realises that there are inconveniences attached to tariffs, and he argued that we ought to have a different Tariff Commission because of two inconveniences that he was aware of. In one case I think it happened that goods were sent outside the Saorstát on approval and duty had to be paid on them on their return. That, I submit, is not any indictment against the Tariff Commission. As a matter of fact, both these tariffs, about which Deputy Ryan complained, were imposed before the Tariff Commission came into existence at all. The Deputy was confusing the functions of the Tariff Commission with the functions of the Revenue Commissioners. If you are going to set up a Tariff Commission, and if that Commission will have to look into every complaint against the existing tariffs, then, indeed, this is not going to be a whole-time job, but an overtime job. In any event, to look into these complaints is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners and not for the Tariff Commission.
The functions of the Tariff Commission, as I understand it, though they may be extended by this motion, would not be materially altered. The function of the Tariff Commission at the present time is to examine, from the economic point of view, every application for a tariff and to see what extra employment it would give, what revenue it would yield, and so on. It is equally important, though this point has not been emphasised by Deputies on the opposite benches, that the Tariff Commission should examine objections from other manufacturers and other industries in the Saorstát to applications for tariffs when made. Any Deputy who has been in the Dáil for some time must have realised that the question of tariffs is bound to affect other branches of industry. The Tariff Commission is there to examine those objections. Before we had the Tariff Commission Deputies were continually receiving complaints. Take one instance. A tariff was imposed on glass bottles. There are several manufacturers of ink in the Saorstát who require empty bottles. They employ probably as many men as the manufacturers of glass bottles. They complained bitterly that their trade was hampered because they had to pay an increased price on the glass bottles they got, while the Englishman could send glass bottles in here duty free. There is an application before the Tariff Commission at present for a tariff on flour. The manufacturers of biscuits in Deputy Lemass's constituency think that they would be very much affected by a tax on flour, and they have made their objection before the Tariff Commission. The fact that the Tariff Commission is there enables them to go before it and make their objection. The Tariff Commission is in a position to hear objections when an application is made for a tariff. I am not clear as to how far that is contemplated by Deputy Lemass's motion, but I think that Deputy O'Connell proposes to leave the Tariff Commission with all its present powers.
Mr. O'CONNELL
In addition to the powers they already have.
That is one of the reasons I am going into all these details which otherwise might be out of order. Deputy O'Connell proposes to leave them with their present powers. Deputy Lemass is not clear whether they should have these powers or not Deputy Lemass condemns the Tariff Commission, but matters affecting large sums of money and matters affecting considerable employment cannot be dealt with in a Stop Press spirit. They can only be dealt with after some consideration and after some caution. It would be unwise to act otherwise. He suggests that the present Tariff Commission should be replaced by a Commission consisting of five members. Deputy Lemass does not say whether they will be whole-time or part-time officials, or whether they can engage in an ordinary business occupation, or whether they will give their whole-time to the business. It is important that we should know that, because if they are whole-time members they will have to be paid, and their office being an important one, which has to deal with thousands of pounds of State revenue and hundreds of thousands of pounds in private enterprise, they will have to be paid in some relation to the importance of their office. Then Deputies will be able to go to the country and talk about big salaries and unnecessary posts.
There are five unnecessary posts Deputy Lemass wants to create—five more posts which will presumably require to be paid posts. Furthermore, they will probably require to be made pensionable, as Deputy Good said, because it will not be everybody who will be qualified for this work. They are to have a knowledge of agricultural and industrial conditions—"agricultural and industrial," not "agricultural or industrial." We must have a man who knows both agriculture and industry. There are not very many such men in this country. I know one such man who is at the head of an important business, and he is also a practical farmer. I think his present salary is in the neighbourhood of £2,000 a year, and so Deputy Lemass will have to pay him that much to detach him from his present business. Then if he is detached he will not satisfy the Deputy, because he objects to tariffs in any shape or form. There may, perhaps, be twelve men in the State who are qualified to hold a position of this kind by reason of their having a knowledge of agricultural and industrial conditions. There are men who have knowledge of agricultural conditions in the country as a whole, and yet they may know nothing of agricultural conditions in a particular part of the country.
Agriculture in this country is singularly diversified. There is very little in common between the large farmer who grows barley in Wicklow or Wexford and the small farmer in Leitrim or Mayo. There is not much interest in common between the small farmer who raises store cattle in the West and a grazier in Meath. Only in very exceptional cases will you get a man who has a knowledge of agricultural conditions in all parts of the country. The officials of the Department of Agriculture may, perhaps, possess such knowledge, but I do not know any other set of men who do. You may get a man who has a knowledge of agriculture in Mayo or Sligo, but a man who has a general knowledge of agricultural conditions spread over the whole country is very hard to find.
Even if you leave the question of industrial knowledge in abeyance, five men will hardly cover the whole thing. Then one has to be a qualified accountant. I confess I do not know any qualified accountants who are farmers in their spare time. The next statement is that they have to be appointed by the Executive Council with the approval of the Dáil. That is to say, that every name is to be brought up on motion in the Dáil: "That the Dáil approve of the appointment of Mr. So-and-so as a member of the Tariff Commission." Then it has to be debated. After nearly five years' experience of the Dáil I can say that the Dáil holds a very high rank in the deliberative assemblies of the world, but this Dáil, as every other deliberative assembly, appears at its worst on a personal question. Whether it be the appointment of a sub-postmaster or the appointment of a Tariff Commissioner, the debate is not edifying and is not calculated to enhance our reputations in the eyes of the world. It will also prove an almost insuperable deterrent to the kind of man whom you want to appoint if he knows that his appointment can be debated in the Dáil, that every member of the Dáil can attack him, can say that he did so and so in a strike, or that he locked out his men. Any amount of mud that any individual wishes to throw, can be thrown at him. You will not get a man in the highest position in the country to undergo that ordeal.
That condition of Deputy Lemass's motion alone would make this proposition a weak one. There is the precedent for it in the appointment of a Minister and the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Ministers are here to answer for themselves, but as has been already pointed out, the Tariff Commissioner will not be here to answer for himself and will not be able to make his own case. I think that in itself is a very serious objection to Deputy Lemass's proposal. There is one feature which Deputy Lemass's motion had in common with Deputy O'Connell's, and I propose to consider it when I have dealt with Deputy O'Connell's. That is, to investigate the conditions which exist in industry——
Might I intervene to say that some Deputies desire to get away to catch a train and they would like to hear the statement of the Minister for Agriculture in connection with the outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease. I would, therefore, suggest that the Deputy move the adjournment of the debate.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
I move the adjournment of the Dáil until Wednesday at 3 o'clock.