Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 2 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 7

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.
—Seán 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."
—Tomás O Conaill.

One is always placed in rather a difficult position when one has to resume a speech after the lapse of a week. I had endeavoured to deal with Deputy Lemass's motion and some of the arguments that were put forward by those who support it, but I propose to be merciful; I do not propose even to summarise the arguments I put forward last week. I think that in the arguments for Deputy Lemass's motion there are one or two points, before I finally come to Deputy O'Connell's amendment, with which I would like to deal. In view of the fact that Deputy Flinn was unable to complete his argument it would be wrong to refer to it at length, but the picture Deputy Flinn drew of the relation of higher civil servants with Ministers was a most fantastic and a most unreal one. He used, and I think reiterated, the phrase that civil servants hold their positions at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council, and he argued that they could not be suitable for the Tariff Commission for that reason. Technically he is right, but in practice the relations of civil servants to Ministers is not that of the adoring slave to the commanding despot, as Deputy Flinn suggested.

As Deputy Flinn is not here, might I interrupt to remind the Deputy that it was not Deputy Flinn originated that statement. That statement came from the Minister for Finance—that civil servants held their positions at the will and pleasure of the Ministry.

Technically that is the case, and I have admitted that Deputy Flinn was technically right. I think he drew a wrong inference from what the Minister for Finance said. In fact the higher grade civil servant is a very independent person. I have known cases here and elsewhere in which the civil servant had at least as much influence in the Minister as the Minister had on the civil servant.

And sometimes a good deal more.

Sometimes, I agree. I am very glad that my point is taken up by Deputy O'Kelly. But it is not the case that three higher civil servants sitting as a Commission are necessarily under the thumb of Ministers to such an extent as to rob them of all freedom of action or of all independence of action. As Deputy Flinn is not here, I will not pursue that point further, but I wanted to point out that the inference drawn was a wrong one.

We might consider what type of men you do need on a commission of this kind. I am not going into the subject of judicial functions, but I would say that for ripe judgement on a commission of this kind you need men who can see both sides of a question, and that faculty does not necessarily attach to persons who have knowledge of agricultural and industrial conditions. I have known more than one business man who made a great success of his business, simply because he only saw one side of the question, and that was his own side. You will not, going among business men, necessarily find that faculty for forming judgement, for deciding between two opposite courses. On the other hand, you will find it among people of legal training and among civil servants, particularly in the higher grades, who have been accustomed to giving decisions on matters in connection with which they get a mass of papers and minutes which they have to disentangle in order to form a judgement. Another advantage attaching to the civil servant is the fact that he is disinterested in so far as anybody can be; or if he is interested at all, it is from the point of view of the consumer.

Business has many reactions. Very often men whose principal line would be one particular business are, nevertheless, directors or shareholders in other businesses. It would be very hard to find five business men who had no connection, direct or indirect, with any of the industries for which tariffs might be demanded. I think that is common knowledge. They might be interested even in a carrying company, and a great many people are railway shareholders. It would not be fair, for instance, to ask Deputy Good to form an opinion on builders' materials. He would be directly interested, and he would not have that detached judgment that is necessary and that it is possible for a civil servant to have. That is why I think the existing system is better than the system which Deputy Lemass seeks to substitute.

I come now to Deputy O'Connell. So far as I can gather from his amendment, it seeks to maintain the present Commission, and endeavours to make it a full-time Commission. I am sure that neither Deputy O'Connell nor any member of his Party would stand for victimisation. I presume the Commissioners, therefore, would retain the salaries they now have with whatever pensionable rights they may enjoy.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Yes.

As Deputy Good pointed out, the amount of work possible for a Tariff Commission would be limited and if the present members of the Commission were on a full-time basis, as is suggested in the amendment, big changes would be necessary. It would mean in practice that you would have to promote three new civil servants to do the work previously done by these gentlemen. You are thereby adding to the salary roll and the pension roll and you are also depriving the State of the services of three efficient officials.

The work will not take them all their lives.

It will not take them all their lives, but according to the amendment they would be devoting their whole time to the work of the Commission. Deputy Corish now suggests that they will be whole-time for a limited period. I do not see that in Deputy O'Connell's amendment.

They would be employed until the work is done.

That is not in the amendment, and Deputy Corish is now amending Deputy O'Connell's amendment. When will the work be done?

Inside twelve months.

There will be no work after twelve months.

I wish Deputy Corish would read the amendment, which says that the members of the Commission are to investigate the position of any industry and the possibilities of fostering such industry or protecting it against foreign competition. Is all that to be done within twelve months in connection with industries which we have not got now but which we may foster? Is all that to be done inside twelve months? I wish I could get the minds of the Labour Party on this subject. I hope Deputy Davin or Deputy Corish will speak after me and then I will know. As far as I can see, it is intended to relieve the three present Tariff Commissioners from their positions. Their posts will have to be filled, particularly in regard to the Stationery Office and the Secretaryship to the Minister for Finance. These posts will have to be filled. Are these men to go back to their posts and displace the people who hold them, or are we to have a new head of the Stationery Office and a new Secretary to the Minister for Finance? I should say anything that involved the loss to the State of these officers, and particulary of one, would be a great misfortune. Those of us who have been studying the Estimates for years know that there is no department in which there was such a fall as in the Stationery Office.

There is one portion of the amendment for which I have nothing but praise, and that is paragraph 2—"to report on the probable effect of methods of assisting and protecting any industry by methods other than Customs duties." I think, when the time comes for a Tariff Commission Act, that might very well be embodied. There is a preference which, I think, is already given in Government purchases. It should certainly be open to the Tariff Commissioners to recommend that a preference of eight or ten per cent. in all Government purchases might be given in order to establish and promote industry. I would go further than Deputy O'Connell, and I would extend the powers of the Commission recommending the revocation of any tariff that, after five or six years' working, does not seem to have justified itself. So far I am with Deputy O'Connell, but where I part company with him is where he has included the words: "That the Commission... should have power... on its own initiative to investigate the position of any industry and the possibility of fostering such industry..." On its own initiative! That gives a roving commission to these three Commissioners to go into any industry, whether it wants protection or not, and say: "We think you ought to have it."

You are not, as Deputy Good said last Friday, going to promote or encourage industry by that method. You are not going to bring capital into the country and interest industrialists in the country. I know one industry in which it would have the effect of inducing the firm, which has a branch factory across the water, to transfer its activities to that branch factory and so cause unemployment in the city of Dublin. Capital is a very shy bird indeed, and it will not be encouraged to invest its money in a country where Tariff Commissioners would be permitted to make investigations and say: "We have decided that you have to get a tariff whether you want it or not."

Deputy Ryan said that the real matter is if the people want a tariff. We all know from these Benches that what people want is what the Fianna Fáil Party want; they interpret themselves from the point of view of the people.

On a point of order, I want to say that Deputy Cooper has succeeded in emptying the House, and I want to know would I be in order to ask for a count of the Deputies present to see if there is a quorum.

The usual practice is to ring the bell.

We are in Committee on Finance now.

No. We are considering a motion.

We are not in Committee on Finance. Is there a quorum present?

I think it is the duty of the Chairman to count the House before he rings the bell.

How many constitutes a quorum?

There is well over a quorum present, and Deputy Cooper can resume.

While I thank Deputy Lemass for his compliment, might I say that the House was rather empty before I began. Another point that has to be taken into consideration is, if the Tariff Commission is to have powers on its own initiative to investigate as to what industries might require a tariff, if they are given that power, they will have to produce evidence, and they will require a very considerable staff, which is another and a different matter. The preparation of a case is very often a matter in which a considerable amount of time and very often, too, a considerable amount of money would have to be spent. If the Tariff Commission is to be given this initiative, and if they are to establish that there is a case for protection in a particular industry, they will have to make investigations not only here but in other countries where the competing industries are, and they will require a staff of accountants and examiners, and people who will have to get information. That proposal is going to involve the State in an expenditure of a very substantial sum of money which might or might not be justified.

But apart from that matter, the third and final objection is that if you set up a permanent Tariff Commission, as I infer from Deputy O'Connell's amendment—and I will be glad to hear further from the Deputy on that point —that Tariff Commission is going to be a very great power in this State, a power that may interfere with the supreme authority of the Dáil. It is very useful, I think, to have a Tariff Commission to investigate and take evidence and make recommendations, but the ultimate authority in matters of finance must rest here, and nowhere else, or the whole fabric of democracy totters. A permanent Tariff Commission with greater knowledge and acquiring experience might become a dangerous rival to the Dáil. The people might look upon it as a greater authority and a greater power in the land, with more influence and with more power to promote industry and give employment than the Dáil. For that reason, I think, the existing arrangement of a Tariff Commission, consisting of servants of the State who, when their work on the Tariff Commission is done, will return to their ordinary work, is the best solution, the most democratic solution, and certainly the most economical solution.

While supporting Deputy Lemass's motion with reference to Deputy O'Connell's amendment, in paragraph No. 3 there is a matter which I think he left out, but without its insertion you would have an evil that exists in Australia and other countries where tariffs are in operation, namely, the inflationary process which occurs when you go about insuring a satisfactory standard of working conditions for employees. If Deputy O'Connell had included a fourth paragraph which would read something like this, it might meet the situation——

On a point of order, is the Deputy really going to suggest a fourth paragraph here, or will he say whether he is personally opposed to the insertion of No. 3 in the amendment? We cannot deal with a number not on the Order Paper.

The Deputy is entitled to make a suggestion, and his suggestion is not a matter for a point of order.

What I would suggest to follow No. 3 is:—

To report on the safeguards required or desirable to ensure reasonable prices in any industry to which assistance may be given.

That is quite compatable, I submit, with No. 3. The only other thing I have to say is this that Deputy Good in his speech opposing the motion referred to the disturbance the setting up of a Tariff Commission would create. He spoke of trade disturbance. I submit that Deputy Good represents the distributive trade in this country, the distributive trade of English manufacturers, and that that was his motive in saying that. That trade would certainly be disturbed because the business would be taken from them. Deputy Cooper spoke about capital being a shy bird and a kind of hot-house plant. There would be no harm to give it a good Irish wilting and there would be no harm if Deputy Cooper and Deputy Good and the rest did realise this fact that if all these people who claim to be the custodians of capital in Ireland cleared out of this country that Irish industry and Ireland itself would progress. When the Czars and the Princes and the rest of them cleared out of Russia, the next morning we were told that the whole Russian population fell dead from starvation, but Russia lives. In America, after the War of Independence, when people sailed from New York Harbour, when the people who took the side of England in that war left, America went on and thrived——

Perhaps the Deputy would come back to the matter of the amendment.

I know what I am talking about.

I do not; that is the trouble.

I am coming to the point of arguing on the merits of tariffs——

We are not arguing on the merits of tariffs. We are arguing on the constitution and functions of the Tariff Commission.

Such a Commission would result in tariffs, I take it.

The Deputy will have to sit down. We are not arguing on tariffs. The Deputy will have to confine himself to the constitution and functions of the Tariff Commission set up to inquire into the necessity or desirability of tariffs.

The Deputies who are opposed to the setting up of this Commission suggested in Deputy Lemass's motion should try to argue from the point of view of whether good or bad will result from the passing of this motion, not from the point of view of what certain people in this State will do if such a Commission were set up. I submit they should not use duress or threats against the setting up of this Commission.

I think it is quite correct to say that when the Minister for Finance was justifying the Tariff Commission Act in this House on a previous occasion he gave an undertaking or expressed an opinion that if in his opinion it became desirable to make the Commission a permanent body, or if the necessity for such a course arose he would be prepared to go that far or to remove the Commissioners at any rate from the position which Civil servants occupy, to remove them temporarily from the positions so as to enable them to do the work of the Tariff Commission as expeditiously as possible. The whole cause of this motion is that in the opinion of Deputy Lemass and his Party, the Tariff Commission, as at present constituted, is unsuitable for dealing expeditiously with applications they receive for the imposition of tariffs.

I think a case has been made for these reasons, and the question that arises now is whether the individuals who would be required to carry on this very important work on behalf of the nation should be drawn from the Civil Service or from individuals outside who might, and probably would, be interested parties. Personally I held the view, when the Tariff Commission was being set up, that it would have been better if we had a chairman who was a non-civil servant, an outsider sitting with two civil servants. I agree with Deputy Cooper that it would be absolutely impossible in the present state of affairs in this country to get five outsiders, non-civil servants, who would be absolutely detached and who would be capable of undertaking work of this kind.

I rise merely for the purpose of dealing with what Deputy Cooper said. Apparently he is alarmed because he feels that civil servants, able men, as we all know, who compose the present Tariff Commission, would be withdrawn permanently from the positions they occupy in the Civil Service and be put on permanent work in connection with the Tariff Commission. I submit, if such a position arises and if, in the opinion of the Minister for Finance and the Executive Council, it would be desirable and necessary to appoint certain civil servants to such a Commission for a stated period, it would be for the Ministry alone to judge as to whether men occupying positions on the Tariff Commission would be more useful in carrying on that work than in retaining the positions they occupy. I believe that one or two men who are on the present Tariff Commission are perhaps the ablest civil servants in this State, and are as good as, if not better than, civil servants in any other States. I say that in so far as the Chairman of the Commission is concerned, and I wonder if many Deputies know the amount of work which this particular individual has to do in the civil service. The wonder is how he can carry on all the work he is called on to do. I am of opinion that there is sufficient work before the Tariff Commission, no matter who may be the individuals who compose that body, for a number of years to come which will justify the Ministry asking those who make up that body to do that work as a whole-time job.

I am not sure whether the Minister for Finance has yet come to that conclusion, but, if not, perhaps he will justify the delay that takes place in dealing with applications that have already been made to the Tariff Commission. Deputy Good talks about the additional expense and perhaps, pensions that would be involved in appointing higher civil servants to carry on in a permanent way the work of such a Commission, and at the same time removing them from their ordinary positions in the Civil Service. I suggest that whatever may be the salaries of men who would be called on to carry out the work of such a Commission, it would be well worth paying what this House would be willing to pay if the industries of the country are to be developed in the way in which the people of the country expect they should.

The inquiries that should be made which would lead up to the development of industries should be carried out by men who have an intimate knowledge of the administrative services of the State and the salary, even though it might be the highest salary to be attached to any position in the Civil Service, would be well worth paying to the men who would be called on to perform that work. Deputy Cooper talked about Deputy Good's statement. We know that if Deputy Good had his way there would be no tariffs and no Tariff Commission. We can assume from what he has said in the House already that he would be against any Tariff Commission being given work of the kind set out in the motion of Deputy Lemass and in Deputy O'Connell's amendment. I want to know from Deputy Lemass before he replies whether he or his Party accept item 3 in the amendment of Deputy O'Connell. I gathered from Deputy Lemass, when moving his motion, that he took the view that it would be unfair to insist that an industry that would get safeguards, protection, or bounties should be called on by the State, or by the people who give that assistance, to see that proper safeguards and working conditions were given to people employed in those industries.

That is not so.

Deputy Lemass will have an opportunity later of dealing in greater detail with what is involved in item 3 of the amendment than he did when moving his motion. If we cannot see that proper conditions are imposed on people who get State assistance, there is very little hope of seeing that such conditions are imposed upon people who do not get such assistance. I hope that the Deputy will deal at length with that matter and make the position of his Party clear when he replies.

I rise to oppose the motion of Deputy Lemass, and, with equal force, Deputy O'Connell's amendment. I do so not because I am in any way in favour of the constitution of the present Tariff Commission. I think the Minister for Finance will agree that tariffs have a large bearing on the cost of living. that they have, in fact, increased the cost of living, and one of my objections to the constitution of the present Tariff Commission is that we have on it three civil servants whose salary and bonus depend on the cost of living. I do not say anything against the honour of the men who compose the present Commission, but I say that it is wrong for the Government to put three civil servants as judges in their own cause as to what they are to get under the cost of living bonus. I hold that the constitution of the present Commission is wrong, that you might as well ask a judge of the High Court to deal with a case in which he himself is financially interested as to ask three civil servants to deal with the question of tariffs when that question affects them in their own salaries. For that reason I am totally opposed to the present constitution of the Tariff Commission.

If Deputy Lemass or Deputy O'Connell had put down a motion to abolish the present Tariff Commission I would be heart and soul with them, because I do not want tariffs. I think the Government were quite wrong and, if I were here when that Commission was first appointed, I would have pointed out that these men were not proper persons to deal with the question of tariffs. I think I would be out of order if I touched on tariffs in a general way. I am confined entirely to the constitution of the Tariff Commission. I have nothing further to add except to say that the present Tariff Commission is not fair to the people of the country and it is not fair to the men who compose it to ask them to be appointed by the Government to be judges in their own cause.

I took a note of a couple of points mentioned during the discussion on the motion. Deputy Cooper said preference was given in the case of army purchases. In question No. 8 on the Order Paper to-day the Minister for Finance was asked if he was aware that there were 100 farriers unemployed in Dublin as a direct result of the importation of foreign-made horse shoes, but the Minister evidently did not know there were farriers unemployed in Dublin. He would not consider the advisability of putting a tariff on imported horse shoes, for he said that was a question that should come up in the ordinary way before the Tariff Commission. It was to deal with cases such as that—men who are unable to put their case before the present Tariff Commission—it is proposed to change the composition of the Commission. Again, in question No. 15, the Minister for Defence was asked whether he was aware that army horses were being shod with imported machine-made shoes. When the Free State Army was being established it was the rule to purchase as far as possible Irish-made materials. To give one case in point, 40,000 pairs of American boots were offered to the army at 5/- per pair, but the offer was not accepted because it was held that the boots should be of Irish manufacture. Evidently it is getting out of fashion to hold that view now, for every galloping major in the Free State Army must have his horse shod with English-made shoes.

On the general question, of course, tariffs and Tariff Commissions are like red rags to Deputy Cooper. That Deputy tried, if I may use a colloquialism, to put the breeze up us by telling us that the whole fabric of democracy was tottering. I did not know whether we should buy steel helmets or running shoes when I heard that. Deputy O'Hanlon said he objected to the presence of Civil Servants on the Tariff Commission, because he held that tariffs affected the salaries and bonuses of civil servants, and consequently they could not be held to be unbiased in their decisions. That suggestion was made, though not in quite the same words, from these benches, and, of course, the whole fabric of the opposite benches fell on top of us. I am not saying whether it was democracy or not. We were accused of terrible things because we made that suggestion, but now we have it coming from Deputy O'Hanlon. Strange to say, the opposite view is held by Deputy Cooper who claims these civil servants are absolutely unbiased because he knew of cases where higher civil servants had as much authority as Cabinet Ministers. As a matter of fact, it was a toss-up with him whether the dog wagged the tail, or the tail wagged the dog. It is strange to have Deputy O'Hanlon and Deputy Cooper disagreeing on this question of tariffs. I do not see why there should be such a divergence of opinion on these matters. It is obvious, from the instance I have quoted with regard to horse shoes, that certain people would benefit materially by tariffs, and that the present Tariff Commission does not cater for these people. It was in order to cater for people who do not ordinarily come within the scope of the present Tariff Commission that Deputy Lemass brought forward his motion. To any person who gives the matter a little thought it will be perfectly clear that the Tariff Commission as at present constituted does not cater for all classes of trades and tradespeople. It it were differently constituted, and its functions were outlined in some other manner and given wider scope these people could be catered for, and it is for that reason Deputy Lemass brought forward his motion.

I do not agree with Deputy O'Hanlon or Deputy Carney. I believe civil servants are the most independent persons to be on a Tariff Commission. If interested parties were to sit in judgment on their own interests fair play could not be expected. Civil servants would be disinterested in giving judgment on questions that come before the Commission. We must have confidence in our civil servants. It seems to me that a fellow-countryman of mine was right when he said it is impossible to get unbiased men to act where there are conflicting interests. In my opinion it is best to have the Tariff Commission composed of civil servants, independent men, men whom Deputy J. J. Byrne described a little while ago as not having their equals in the country, a description which was re-echoed by the Labour Party. We certainly can expect fair-play from civil servants on a Tariff Commission, and I congratulate the Government in setting up a Commission composed of such able, energetic and disinterested men.

I think it is very appropriate this debate should be linked up with the debate on the old age pensions, for they both have a big bearing on each other. Yesterday we decided by a narrow majority that the production of the country at present would not enable us to pay so much as 10/- per week to every old age pensioner over 70 years of age. Nearly everyone in the House expressed regret that such was so. Well, here is a debate in which those who regretted it so much are afforded the opportunity of showing they so desire to increase production that at least 10/- per week will be soon possible.

Remember that in this we are not discussing, practically speaking, a contentious question. Except perhaps for Deputy O'Hanlon and half a dozen others. I think the House generally agrees that tariffs are a means of stimulating production. The President has said that "frankly, we are a protectionist Party." One would be almost driven to the conclusion that that statement was, like the statement in regard to prosperity, intended largely for export, but when it came to the test as regards sharing the prosperity with the old people, it was not found possible to justify it. I am afraid the statement that "frankly, we are a protectionist Party" has also to be modified. In fact, it is to be forgotten as quickly as possible. Some very extraordinary arguments have been advanced against the motion of Deputy Lemass. The Minister for Justice started with the most amazing statement of all, that this was hasty legislation. I think he repeated that statement more than once. It looks curious that a motion to increase the personnel of the Tariff Commission from three to five, to make them whole-time instead of part-time, instead of the Chairman of the Commission having to attend the Tariff Commission after he has acted as Secretary to the Department of Finance, or after he has acted as a member of the Currency Commission, or as a member of the Economy Committee and several other things as well, should be described as hasty legislation. Yet the statement was accepted by several Deputies on the opposite side of the House. Deputy Bennett, of Limerick, I remember, repeated it, while Deputy Cooper crowned it by calling it "Stop Press legislation." One wonders what meaning words have at all. I believe there was a poet once who said that, under the influence of spiritual exaltation, men realise that things are not what they seem. I would not like to assert that all the Deputies who spoke from the other side of the House were labouring under spiritual exaltation, but there must be some explanation for it. We believe, and, we are quite satisfied, that the opinion of the world that tariffs are a means of stimulating production is a sane opinion. We do not think we are such superior people that we have found better methods than they have found, but we have brought forward this motion with the honest motive of speeding up the work of enforcing protection.

I happen to know that influential supporters of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party have been active in endeavouring to get the Whips taken off in this debate. One of them told me that he was endeavouring to do it and had got good support for it, and hoped it would be brought about. Well, evidently there are reasons against it, and the Whips are not being taken off. That is a big surprise. Apart from the old age pensions debate or anything else, the evidence that exists that the towns in the Saorstát are in a shocking condition of poverty and decay, that they are doing nothing to justify their existence, and that the farmers are unable to carry the burden of the towns on their shoulders at the present time, is known to everyone. The amazing thing is that a body of farmers should meet, as they did recently at the Farmers' Union, and congratulate themselves that they have been influential in stopping what they called the "tariff ramp"—in other words, that they have been influential in preventing the towns from doing something that would justify their existence, and something to contribute to the social services that the towns themselves are making such a demand for and which cost so much. The amazing thing is that the farmers, while bewailing their own sad lot and the bad conditions that exist for them, set out to congratulate themselves on having been able to achieve such a position.

It seems to me that the importer elements in this country are so very influential and have got such a tremendous command of the Press that they have been able to carry on propaganda that has blinded very many thousands of people and so dulled the minds of the members of the Farmers' Union that these men contradict themselves every time they speak on this subject. There are other industries that need protection at the present time. In some cases they are industries of very great importance to the farmer. Though it is not a pleasant thing to name an individual firm, I happen to know that the firm of Goulding, Limited, have been applying to the Government for some help for their industry, although they are not prepared to go before the Tariff Commission. I wonder will Deputy Heffernan and his colleagues applaud this if some day it is announced in the newspapers that that big firm, which is so essential to the farming community, has closed down? Only within the past month another very old firm in the same business has closed down. It is well known, or at least it ought to be well known, to the leaders of the farming community that that firm is in great difficulties.

This motion has been put down with a view to meeting cases like that. The existence of that firm is of as much importance to the humblest man in the country as it is to the directors of the firm, and therein lies our big fault with the present Tariff Commission. We hold that the people working in that industry have at least as much interest, in many cases more interest, in seeing that the industry is maintained in a prosperous condition as those who are directing it. There are several other examples that could be quoted. It may not be known in the House, but I can tell Deputies, that at a commercial exhibition in London last November, a vehicle exhibition, the rumour went out that there was to be an immediate tariff imposed on motor bus bodies. Immediately that rumour went out, some people connected with the coach-building industry in this country who happened to be present at the exhibition were surrounded by agents for commercial vehicles, giving them orders. The whole difficulty was: "When will you be able to deliver?" One man who was present booked thousands of pounds' worth of orders, but before the exhibition was over word arrived that the Dáil had adjourned. These people were safe then for another three months, and every one of the orders was cancelled. Deputy Heffernan is in the happy position to-day that the biggest town in his constituency has, according to the "Irish Times" the other day, over seven hundred men and their families starving, while they could have had, if the Government were really serious on this tariff question, a turnover in that town in wages of between ten thousand and fifteen thousand pounds a month. That is going on all along the line.

Nobody in Ireland who thinks on the subject, and happily there are many who think on it, is satisfied with the present constitution or functioning of the Tariff Commission. At their present rate of progress it will take them a good many life times before they reach the number of fairly substantial industries that are in existence at the present time. Is that satisfactory, I wonder? We have had all sorts of ridiculous arguments put up against us on this motion. We were told that we attacked the civil servants on the Tariff Commission. There was nothing farther from our minds than to do that. So far as we know these men, we can say that we have respect for them; we have as much respect for them as any Deputy sitting on the opposite Benches. There is nothing in Deputy Lemass's motion to prevent civil servants from sharing in the new Commission, and with regard to the trifling that Deputy Cooper indulged in about the difficulty of getting farmers acquainted with agricultural conditions in the country to serve on the Commission, well, if the Deputy means that to be constructive I am afraid he will never be of very much help in dealing with a vital matter like this.

It is very easy, notwithstanding anything which Deputy Cooper has said, to get men who have a good general knowledge of agricultural conditions. One of the Deputy's arguments seemed to suggest that the only man who could look at things impartially was the man who had not a knowledge of agricultural or industrial conditions. At least that is what I inferred from his argument. There are many thousands of men in Ireland, there are at least hundreds of men of great value in the country, capable of being great captains of industry, who, for the past five or six years have been waiting anxiously to see whether the things they hoped for from self-government would fructify, whether the country would get a chance of building up its own industrial life and of making the fullest use of its resources. Are these men to be told, as a result of this debate, that all this tariff machinery was only so much window-dressing, that they had better not worry but put up with things as they are, as there is nothing to be done for them?

We have not brought forward this motion as a party matter. We would be glad if it was discussed in a non-party spirit. It was a great disappointment to us, and it does not reflect a lot of credit on the other side, that a University Deputy had to be put up to make puerile efforts to sneer at a question like this that vitally affects production and the lives of the humblest as well as the most important people of the country. I urge the Government even yet to reconsider their attitude, to admit that even if Deputy Lemass's motion has defects there are things that need to be done in connection with the Tariff Commission to make it effective and to do the work it was intended to do.

Behind this motion and the amendment to the motion there seems to be an idea that avoidable delay has taken place in dealing with applications made to the Tariff Commission. Now, that is not the case. I stated in this House, and other Ministers stated, that if it were necessary we would make changes in the membership of the Tariff Commission, or relieve the members of the Commission of other work, in order that no delay might take place in dealing with the applications that came before that body. The idea seems to be that if we appointed a body which was whole-time, with somewhat different terms of reference, business would be greatly expedited. If anybody examines the working of the American Tariff Commission, he will see that that is not necessarily so. In America, there is a Tariff Commission of six members appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate. They hold office, after a transition period, for twelve years. No member shall engage actively in any other business, partnership or employment. A member may only be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty or misfeasance in office. Yet, the work of that Commission has not proceeded at all with the rapidity that Deputies here seem to expect would result from the adoption of this motion or amendment.

I have before me the periods occupied in considering certain applications. One was an application in regard to fabric gloves. It took the Tariff Commission of the United States, with its whole-time members and large staff, and with all the resources that it could ask for the purpose of doing its duty, two years and five months to deal with the application in respect of fabric gloves. There was another application in respect of paint-brush handles. That would seem to be a matter that should not be more difficult than the application with regard to Rosary beads here. The application in regard to paint-brush handles took three years and six months to dispose of. An application in respect to sewed straw hats took two years and five months, and the shortest one, in regard to sugar, took one year and four months. That shows that it does not necessarily follow that you get through these matters with greater rapidity because you have whole-time members. I shall give some details in regard to the applications made here.

I would like to ask the Minister if he would give us the date of the application made to the American Commission for a tariff on gloves and the granting of it?

The investigation was ordered on the 16th January, 1923, and the report was made on 12th June, 1925. Now, take the case of flour. That is one of the two highly-important applications that have come before the Tariff Commission. The application was referred to the Tariff Commission on the 13th March; the fee was paid on the 22nd March. Public sittings to hear evidence were held on the 7th April and the 12th April, and again on the 2nd, 3rd and 15th June and 20th December. In camera, the Commission sat for the hearing of confidential evidence on the 1st, 2nd and 29th of June and on the 1st December and 17th January. The sittings were spread over these lengthy periods because important witnesses were often not available and applications were made to the Commission for postponement in order that the witnesses might be heard. This was the sort of case in which the Commission felt they could not dispense with any witnesses of importance. In addition to hearings on these particular days, the Commission visited the premises of various milling companies. They visited the Dublin Port Milling Company and the Merchants Warehousing premises on the 14th September; the mills at Bagenalstown in Carlow on the 20th September; Liverpool and Birkenhead on the 30th September and 1st October; mills at Skipton, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire on the 26th and 27th January.

Then, owing to matters that arose in the Dáil here, and certain views taken by the Flour Millers' Association, the proceedings were interrupted on the 11th November. During all that time the work of the Commission was not held up by the members not being available to deal with it. It was held up by other causes—delays in seeking out information, examining information and examining accounts. In other cases there were intervals which I shall indicate. Take the second important application—that for a tariff on woollens and worsteds. The application was referred to the Tariff Commission by the Minister for Finance on the 25th February, 1927. Now, the detailed case was not lodged by the applicants until the 3rd May. There was an interval of over two months, for which the Tariff Commission was in no way responsible. The fee was paid by the applicants on the 21st May. The application was announced in the Press on the 27th May. The statements of the opponents were lodged with the Commission on the 22nd and 28th June. Then the applicants and the opponents jointly asked the Commission not to fix an earlier date than the last week of September or the first week of October for the hearing of the case. That application was heard on the 3rd August. The application, for some reason, was a little later than that. It was in the beginning of November. The hearing of the application was on the 8th and 9th November. During the interval the detailed case and documents submitted had been considered very carefully and on frequent occasions by the members of the Tariff Commission. As a matter of fact, Deputies may be aware that the Commissioners were publicly complimented for the way they studied the documents, and for the knowledge they showed of the case when the matter came up for public hearing. A public hearing of opponents came on the 22nd and 23rd of November. There was an in-camera hearing for the parties on the 10th January. At these hearings both applicants and opponents undertook to submit further information. The applicants submitted that information on the 11th February. The opponents have promised to submit their information not later than the 3rd March, but there again there was not the slightest delay for which the Commission could be held responsible. There could not have been further expedition if you had no other duty for the Commissioners. I would not say you might not have had a day's delay occasionally, but there was no appreciable delay. If you, perhaps, had Commissioners with nothing to do they might have heard the matter on Saturday instead of Monday.

Take a more glaring case—the coach and motor bodies. There was an application in respect to a tariff on those. The application was referred to the Commission on the 31st January, 1927. The detailed case was lodged by the applicants on the 31st March, exactly two months after the application had been referred to the Tariff Commission. On the 22nd April they were notified by the Commission of the amount of the fee. The fee was paid on the 6th August. That is to say, the applicant sat down and did nothing from the 22nd April until the 6th August, and we hear it assumed by everybody that the reason this tariff was not put on coach and motor bodies was that the Tariff Commission was not doing its business. The stamp form on which the fee was paid was not returned to the Commission until the 23rd August. You had from the 22nd April to the 23rd August before the applicants took the step they were asked to. The application was announced in the Press, and in the interval the scope of the application was modified by the applicant. Between the 23rd August and the 4th November they modified the application. It was announced in the Press on the 4th November, and on the 14th December a letter was received from the opponents counter-signed by Mr. John P. O'Gorman, on behalf of the applicants, stating that they had agreed to postponing the matter, and it was not until the 22nd January that the agreement was withdrawn and the Tariff Commission was enabled to proceed with the case. So here we have in the case of motor bodies a delay of a year all but four days without any progress made, and that delay solely and entirely due to the applicants, not one day of it due to the Tariff Commission.

Take another case, down quilts, which was referred to the Commission on the 26th February. The detailed case was received from the applicants on the 15th October, so that they again sat still from the 26th February until the 15th October. On the 15th October the detailed case was received. The fee was paid on the 29th November and on the 16th December an announcement was made in the Press. Then notice of opposition was received from certain people who submitted a statement of evidence on the 16th January.

Take the case of fish barrels. That was referred to the Commission on the 7th March, 1927. The detailed case was lodged by the applicants on the 4th October. The fee was paid on the 2nd December, and then an announcement was made in the Press. Take again, the question of maize products. An application was referred to the Commission on the 1st April last. On the 12th April applicants were requested to submit their detailed case. They have not yet done so. I do not think the Tariff Commission can be blamed there. A Deputy inveighed against the Tariff Commission because nothing had been done in respect of leather and talked about the tanneries which had gone out of operation. There was an application in respect of sole, insole and harness leather, referred to the Tariff Commission on the 16th June. The applicants were requested on the 20th June to submit their detailed case and have not yet done so.

Other cases where there may have been delays have been more recently referred to the Tariff Commission, but what I have said gives a fair picture of what the Tariff Commission has to contend with. A lot of people who decided to make application have really very little notion of the case they can make. They make no preliminary preparation; so when the Tariff Commission applies for the detailed case they begin to do the work they should have been doing long before they made their approach at all. If we had whole-time Commissioners they would have nothing at all to do on the present basis. If they had a roving Commission to inquire into matters themselves, no doubt they could have made work for themselves. But on the basis that this Tariff Commission is set up of considering applications, if we had whole-time men on this work they would have nothing to do, so the occasion has not yet arisen for making any of the adjustments the Government promised to make if it became necessary in order to see that applications coming before the Tariff Commission were expeditiously dealt with.

Deputy Lemass's motion is to the effect that a Tariff Commission as at present constituted is unsuitable for dealing expeditiously with the applications received for the imposition of a tariff. I suggest that what I have said disposes of that much of it so far as no different constitution of the Committee would enable it to deal more expeditiously with an application received for the imposition of tariffs. If we like to go into matters which seem to be implied in the motion, that, apart from the question of expedition altogether, it is unsuitable, I do not think it is unsuitable. This Commission is not a judicial body. It does not decide on tariffs. The decision rests with the Executive, which will make propositions to this House. This House will decide on the propositions. The Tariff Commission is not bound by their Act to recommend either for or against a tariff. It is simply required to make reports on certain aspects in respect to certain applications received; it may easily report that such a tariff is necessary to establish an industry, that the cost of the article would be seriously increased, that the cost of living would be raised, that the revenue coming in would be so much, that the employment given would be so much, and leave it there, and leave the Government and the House to make their decision. The Tariff Commission has chosen to make definite recommendations in each case, but it is not required to do that; it is required to ascertain the facts, and, in a large part, its recommendations and conclusions will be on evidence which was given publicly, but we had to recognise, when we were setting up this body, that all the information could not be given publicly. The various concerns would damage themselves if they stated some of their difficulties in public. Consequently we had to allow the Tariff Commission to take certain evidence, when requested, in camera, and the only thing we have to reply on is that they reflect honestly in their report the effect of the evidence given in camera.

I think it was not a good thing that Deputies raised in the way they did the fact that civil servants hold office at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council, because here they are acting in a capacity different from the way in which they act departmentally. A civil servant in any Department writes: "I am directed by the Minister to say so and so." A civil servant must do in his Department what the Minister tells him in the last resort. His personal feelings, his personal honour, or his personal views do not come into the matter at all, but when you appoint a civil servant on a Commission he is placed on the Commission in the same capacity as anybody outside. He is there, not to act on the instructions of anybody, but to do his own work and to give his own views, and I think it is very unfair to suggest that because a man is in the Civil Service he will not report honourably and honestly as he is required to report in the Tariff Commission. No civil servant is obliged to act on the Tariff Commission. If any of the civil servants on the Commission said tomorrow that he did not desire to act any further he would be relieved. We simply selected various civil servants who we thought would be the most impartial-minded we could find. We asked them if they would act, and they agreed to act. They do their work on the Commission without any direction of any kind from Ministers. So far as we are concerned, we do not care what the effect of the report. We only want to know the truth and act as well as we can about the matters about which they report, and we will think out our course. But the civil servants are absolutely independent in doing their work on the Tariff Commission, and no different effects would be got in that respect from appointing other people.

When we were setting up the Commission we were pressed from many quarters to put at least one non-civil servant on the Commission. We examined that proposal, and we came to the conclusion that it would be very hard to get anybody from outside who would be unprejudiced and who would be willing to take the knocks he would get from various sides, no matter how he decided. Business men outside would be subject to pressure by friends and associates and would find it much more difficult to act impartially than any civil servant. The ordinary civil servant has got a training which enables him to look at both sides of the question more easily than people outside, and he can decide as he wishes on the facts put before him.

I would like to know would I be in order in asking if there is any means by which the importation of locomotives and rolling stock can be dealt with at present, seeing that the Commission has not got any application.

I was coming to that at another point, but I will deal with it now. I think it is not the sort of application to deal with which we set up the Tariff Commission, for this reason: that the question of marketing, the question of prices, in the ordinary way does not come into it. It is a simpler question than any of the questions put before the Tariff Commission. I presume it is simply a question of what the additional cost, if any, will be, and how that additional cost, if any, is to be reflected under the Railway Act in railway charges, and what the employment given will be. That could be raised in a variety of ways. It cannot come before the Tariff Commission, but it could be raised by the shareholders of railways if they choose to raise it. That is the sort of matter that should be examined specially if there was a case made for that examination. When the Tariff Commission was being set up, I indicated that it would deal with the ordinary run of cases. I said somewhere in the course of the debate on the Tariff Commission Bill that we recognised that in certain cases ad hoc Committees would have to be set up to examine certain problems. I gave as an instance the sugar-beet subsidy, and I said that in any work like that it would be possible to have an ad hoc Committee to examine it, but the Tariff Commission can deal with all ordinary questions which come before it.

A question was also raised during the debate as to agricultural produce, and applications for a tariff on agricultural produce. The Minister for Finance has to be satisfied that the people making an application are reasonably representative of the industry before he is obliged to refer the application to the Tariff Commission. I can say that I would be prepared to give a liberal interpretation to that section if an application were made for a tariff in respect of any agricultural product, but the only application in respect to agricultural produce that I have had was one from a body calling itself the Irish Farmers' Protectionist Union, and which applied for a tariff on agricultural produce. Another was from the County Kerry Committee of Agriculture, which also applied for a tariff on agricultural produce. I took the view that both applications were much too vague, apart from the fact that the bodies making them were not representative.

I might illustrate the view I would take on certain applications. If two or three county committees from the barley-growing counties submitted an application for a tariff on barley I would consider them sufficiently representative to allow their application to go to the Tariff Commission. I would take a liberal view of their representative character, provided that they made a definite application for a tariff on one article or on a group of articles. But a broad general application for the protection of agricultural products I would not entertain, any more than I would entertain such an application for the protection of manufactured goods.

Would the Minister tell us by what means an application for a tariff or for the prohibition of the importation of foreign malt could be brought before the Tariff Commission, seeing that the brewing industry, which is apparently the only industry concerned, is not likely to bring it forward?

There are two points in that. I do not know whether the Deputy is wondering whether an agricultural committee, or any body like that, could make an application. I would consider that. Certainly, maltsters could apply. As a matter of fact, I would be prepared to consider whether a committee representing the barley growers might not apply. On the question of prohibition, the Commission would be entitled to say that the only thing that would be effective would be a tariff of such an amount as was clearly a prohibitive amount. In the case of margarine, for instance, they recommended a tariff which they said would be sufficient to give the whole market to home manufacturers, and although the Tariff Commission is not asked to deal with the question of prohibition, it could easily provide for it in that way by recommending a tariff that would be in effect a prohibition, or it could in its incidental remarks say that it thought that prohibition, or some method other than a tariff, would be desirable.

We did not ask the Tariff Commission to go into the question of prohibitions or subsidies, but there is nothing at all to prevent the Commission, if it feels that something ought to be done in that direction, and that a tariff is not a satisfactory way of dealing with it, to state in its general remarks, which it is asked for in the final paragraph of the Schedule, that it feels that some method other than a tariff should be resorted to.

Mr. CORRY rose.

I am not in the witness box just at the moment, Dealing with the question of the scope of the Commission, I do not think that you would expedite the work of the Commission—and that is what most Deputies seem to have in mind—by adding to the matters into which it must or may inquire. I believe, in the first instance, that the change such as seems to be in the minds of both the mover of the amendment and the mover of the motion, that the members should be whole-time, would cause delays. We have a certain body of civil servants who have time for the work at present and who are able to do the work. They have got certain knowledge and certain experience. It may be necessary to change them later on, but until it is necessary to change them any disturbance would only delay the consideration of proposals. New people coming in would have something to learn and would not be able to get on as quickly as the present members. For the work that is available we could not consider the advisability of taking any of the members of the Commission off their other duties. We would be taking them away from highly urgent and highly important work, and we would be leaving them to do something that would not occupy anything like nearly their whole time.

Am I to understand that the Minister refuses to answer a question?

The Deputy had better sit down, and speak when his turn comes. The motion suggests that one of the people should be a qualified accountant. The Tariff Commission can employ experts; there is nothing to be gained by having a chartered accountant, or somebody like that, a member of the Commission. The qualifications of a chartered accountant might be desirable for a commissioner, but they are by no means necessary. If you have people with ordinary intelligence to deal with accounts, they can, with the assistance of professional accountants, consider matters just as well as if they were qualified accountants themselves.

According to the motion, the Commission should have power to investigate conditions existing in any industry in regard to its need for protection against foreign competition. My belief is that a Commission could not in any reasonable time investigate the conditions of any industry if the people conducting the industry were not anxious to have them investigated. It would simply be a question of outsiders trying to understand the conditions of a business without the full co-operation of the people actually conducting the business. I believe that they could only get reasonably satisfactory results after the expenditure of a great deal more time and a great deal more labour than Deputies contemplate.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.

If you have the co-operation of the people conducting an industry you may understand the conditions fairly well in five or six months; if you have not their co-operation you may spend five or six years, and not get anything like as good an understanding of the difficulties under which they labour. I believe that under this proposal the Commission would frequently be following false trails. It would spend a great deal of time and a great deal of the taxpayers' money in investigating conditions in industries that were not worthy of investigation. In respect of the main industries of the country, those conducting them have been willing to come forward, and until they have been dealt with I think it is undesirable to diverge into industries in respect of which applications will not be made. In certain cases where people actually conducting or owning industries are not willing to apply, people who are prepared to come in are willing to apply, and one such application has been made.

I also think it would be undesirable that the Commission should make recommendations to the Executive Council as to how the benefits derived from the measure of protection afforded to any trade could be shared by the consumers. That is an entirely different question. That could be dealt with, if it must be dealt with, by a different body. That question is not distinct from the question of dealing with profiteering in any industry. If we are going to deal with profiteering we can deal with it all-round. If we are going to deal with it only in respect of these tariffed industries, then we are applying a special scrutiny to them; we are throwing special obstacles in the way of people who are prepared to come in and carry on under tariffs. The result would be tariffs without industries.

Even when we agree to a tariff, often a very considerable time elapses before the results one would expect from a tariff ensue. I think it is practically four years now since the tariff on soaps was imposed, but it has only just been within the last few months that there have been big extensions in the plants for manufacturing soaps carried out here. In respect of a number of other industries as much as a year has elapsed after the imposition of tariffs before anybody moved. That was because the prospects were not so clearly seen. If you are going to control their prices, to examine them specially as distinct from those of other people, to see that they are not profiteering; if you are going to make special inquiries into what they are paying their workers and what their conditions are, the effect will simply be that the tariffs will not produce the results in industries that they are expected to produce. My view is that if we feel that an industry requires a tariff in order to live, we should give it that tariff, but that we should not put it under special disabilities as compared with other industries; we should not ask it to comply with other requirements that other industries are not asked to comply with. If we are imposing tariffs at all we are doing so for the purpose of producing results and getting industries set up, and we will not be able to do that if allow the Tariff Commission to wander into these other matters, and especially to discriminate against these particular industries in ways that do not apply to other industries.

I will deal with one matter that was mentioned by Deputy O'Hanlon about civil servants judging their own case. As a matter of fact, the matter does not affect civil servants. The rise and fall of the cost of living affects civil servants in the same way as it affects other people outside. So far as higher civil servants are concerned, it has practically no effect on their bonus. In conclusion, I want to say that it is my belief that, if the motion or amendment were passed, the work of dealing with applications for a tariff would be impeded rather than expedited. I believe costs would be run up, and that the objects Deputies have in mind would not be served. The Tariff Commission has only got fairly started on its work. It has a considerable number of applications before it now in such a form that they can be considered. If the work increases, changes in personnel may be made. If the work does not substantially increase no changes in personnel are necessary. If Ministers find that there are many industries in respect of which they believe protection should be afforded, and if there are no applications made from the people conducting these industries, then we can consider whether or not it would be a good thing to give the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Lands and Agriculture power to submit proposals to the Tariff Commission. The Government has already indicated that in certain circumstances they would be prepared to amend the Act so as to give these Ministers that power. But the position at present is this, that these Ministers have no cases which they feel they want to submit to the Commission. If in the course of time that position alters, then we can alter the Act. To alter the Act at present would do no good whatever to the people who want a tariff, because it would delay matters. It would not improve matters from the point of view of those who want things fairly and impartially considered, because here, I believe, we have a body which is more impartial than any other body we could possibly get. I think both the motion and the amendment are brought forward under a misapprehension of the actual facts. Because reports have not been forthcoming in considerable numbers from the Tariff Commission up to the present time, the idea has got abroad that the delays are due to some default on the part of the Commission. I think if anyone considers fairly the details I gave in respect of applications which have been before the Commission, that impression will go.

During the debate Deputy Cooper made the somewhat sensational, alarming and noteworthy statement that he knew a farmer who had two thousand pounds. I have met as many farmers as Deputy Cooper, but I never met a farmer who owned to having even £1. To my knowledge they are ruined 365 times in a year, so that I would certainly like to make the acquaintance of the farmer Deputy Cooper has indicated.

May I correct Deputy Anthony? The gentleman in question has a business which brings him in £2,000 yearly, and he farms only as a hobby.

I knew there was a mistake. Then he is not a farmer. It is the prevailing opinion largely throughout the area I represent that this Commission has absolutely failed in the purpose for which it was set up. Notwithstanding the facts and figures given by the Minister for Finance, we know that there has been considerable delay in bringing to any kind of fruition the so-called labours of this Commission. One portion of Deputy O'Connell's amendment gives me more concern than other portions of it. I refer to the clause in it dealing with working conditions for employees in any industry which may in the future seek a tariff. Another clause suggests that there are other methods besides a tariff by which an industry might be fostered or encouraged. Whilst believing that in many cases tariffs are necessary, I am not at the same time blinding myself to the fact that there are many industries in this country which would be the better for the introduction of good management, improved machinery and methods. Another clause in the amendment seeks to give power to the Commission on its own initiative to investigate the position of any industry. We know that there are certain industrialists or so-called industrialists in this country who are not really producers at all. They are merely distributors for foreign manufacturers, and in many cases we find these opposed to a tariff, because to them as individuals it is a far better paying proposition to act as agents or distributors for foreign manufacturers. The portion of the amendment with which I am more intimately concerned is that which would ensure that those engaged in protected industries would get a decent living, have good working conditions, and receive wages sufficient at any rate to give themselves and their families a decent livelihood, and something beyond that, so as to enable them to enjoy some of the educational and cultural advantages which are now the prerogative of the moneyed few.

I said a couple of days ago, when we were speaking about old age pensions, that in my view it was not a Party question. I should say the same to-day of this. There are such things as Party questions. There are great principles which divide us here. There is primarily the great question of the Treaty, one which involves deep questions of policy and principle, questions on which I, at least, see no possibility of compromise. I am confirmed in my view by the speech that was made by Deputy Moore, that here we are really one at principle, and are only divided, so far as we are divided, on a matter not of principle, but merely of procedure and method. I think this is an example of the great advantage which this country has obtained by the coming in of the Fianna Fáil Party. We hear no more in this House, as we heard a good deal in the country, about the imposition of tariffs wholesale without inquiry. The Fianna Fáil Party, if I understood Deputy Moore aright—and I presume he speaks with authority—like the Party of Cumann na nGaedheal, stands not for whole-hog protection, but for selective protection.

Therefore, the only question as I see really between us is the method by which protection is to be applied. I am glad that it should be so, and I am glad also that there should be here again no suggestion made such as was made, I know, in the country during the elections; such as I have seen made occasionally in the local newspapers, that those who are not prepared without inquiry of the most careful kind to make up their minds to enforce protection upon industries of every kind must be animated not by regard for Irish interests but by regard for English interests. For that suggestion there are no grounds and I am very glad to notice that it is a suggestion that has not been made here now. The whole question between us is how our fiscal policy shall be shaped in such a manner as that we may do the maximum of good, and, if possible, to do it without doing any harm at all. It is common to us both that this is a matter in which expedition is proper. It is not a matter in which there should be any avoidable delay. I am going to confess to the House that until I heard the speech of the Minister for Finance just now, there was just that one point of doubt in my mind. I confess I had some doubt in my mind as to whether a body of civil servants such as compose the present Tariff Commission was, in fact, the best body for dealing expeditiously as well as impartially with this matter. I had no doubt about its impartially myself, but I had about its expedition. I confess there was some possible doubt in my mind about the latter. But these doubts, so far as I am concerned, have been removed by the speech to which we have listened from the Minister for Finance. I shall await with very great interest the answer which I am sure will be forthcoming from the opposite benches to that speech, but to my mind it does seem to me that the Minister made a complete case as showing on the one hand that by experience in the United States the method of appointing a whole-time Commission did not necessarily result in any extraordinary expedition; and on the other hand, it is quite a fact that our own Commission was one in which there had been no delay on the part of the Commission, but it does appear that there had been very considerable delay on the part of the parties who were themselves interested in getting these tariffs. I have said there is very little between us on this matter, but I do find this: that there is a difference of opinion as to methods, and there is something, perhaps, rather more important, and that is put not as a point of view but as a point of fact. I was reading to-day the speeches made on last Friday by some of the various Deputies. Amongst many others I came across the speech made by Deputy Derrig, and I find this:—"It was expected by the national element," he is speaking, I gather, of the time at which the Tariff Commission was being set up, and he says: "It was expected by the national element."

I take it that by the national element, he means himself and his friends. The rest of us do not count. "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." That, I conceive it is: that it is an impartial Commission, it is judiciously examining the whole problem. The real complaint about the Commission is that it does proceed with a judicial calm. He goes on to say "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 interdependent, 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.'" I do not know whether that is seriously disputed. It seems a perfectly self-evident, obvious fact. He then proceeded, "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?" That appears to me an entirely wrong way of approaching the whole problem. The conception here is that the Commission is to approach the consideration of whether putting on a tariff on this or that or any industry and this and that and the other product is desirable in the interests of the country. They are to approach the examination of the evidence which they are bound to take and they are to come to their conclusion not on that evidence, but in accordance with some pre-conceived notion, as to whether in a general way protection or free trade will bring to you the true light of the Gospel. I suggest that that is an entirely wrong way of approaching the matter. People who think in that fashion make no allowance at all for the extraordinary complexity of these problems. It is a matter of the most obvious fact that you do not know, you certainly cannot tell without the most careful inquiry where one industry ends and another begins You have therefore to examine and to judge the case not only on its own individual merits but to ask will the carrying of a tariff imposition in the case of this particular article enable the manufacturers to employ so many more people, but you have to ask yourself what is going to be the effect of that upon kindred manufacturers and upon the community as a whole. And you have got to take the whole of that in relation with the others. In judging this question you have got to take that in relation to the whole of your financial and social policy. The idea that you should rush as a bull in a china shop into expedition in this matter is entirely false. Let me illustrate that by a couple of cases that have recently come into my own purview. A little earlier in the day we were considering the fate of the tobacco industry in this country and I remember being astonished when a gentleman who is much interested in the establishment of that industry told me that he attributed the partial failure of the industry under which he had himself suffered so grievously to the fact of the putting of an imperial preference duty on tobacco. I mean to say the giving to this country of the imperial preference since this country shared in that preference. You would assume that having a high rate of duty against other countries within the ring would have enabled Irish tobacco to flourish. Yet, so strongly complex is this, so many wheels are there within wheels——

Words within words.

It is actually the fact that in this instance the imposition of a higher duty, even though a preference was given, had the effect of injuring rather than aiding the very industry in relation to which the tariff had been imposed. Here is another instance. I got a letter only the other day from one of a firm of bakers in a part of my own county complaining bitterly that certain firms in the Six Counties were sending large quantities of bread into County Donegal, thereby destroying the old-established trade of himself and his family. He put it to me very naturally that if only these people—these foreigners, he said—could be prevented from sending bread from the Six Counties into the Saorstát, he would be able once more to employ a larger number of men. It is not suggested in those Benches that you should apply a tariff to foodstuffs, at any rate to such a commodity as bread. But then, why not? If there is a tariff on flour, why not on bread? You put it that flour is raw material, and bread is the finished product. Let us examine that a little bit more. Flour is the finished product of the miller. It is baked into bread, and bread is the finished product of the baker. But one might almost say that it is the raw material which is nourishing the agricultural labourer, and so you go round and round. Curiously enough, it was only to-day when I came into the House I met someone from my constituency. She said: "What is on in the House?" and I said that we had a great tariff controversy on. She asked: "Is it barrels?" and I said "Not exactly barrels, but we may incidentally refer to barrels." I said to her: "Are you in favour of a tariff on barrels?" and she said: "Nothing less; it would ruin us. I said "Why?"

Say it again.

Lest there should be any mystery in the matter, I will reveal that these particular barrels I am speaking of contained fish. I am sorry to disappoint Deputies. There is at the present moment a very hot controversy —I observe it from the local papers— going on as to the desirability of having a tariff imposed on fish barrels. On the face of it, you can argue at once that there are great quantities of barrels imported into this country for the purpose of fish curing; they are imported very largely from Scotland.

Is the Deputy in order?

I think I can put it in order, Sir.

It is near four o'clock and the Deputy is making allowance for that.

I am inclined to think the Deputy could eventually have made it in order, but perhaps he had better adjourn the debate now.

I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate accordingly adjourned to Wednesday, 7th March.

Barr
Roinn