Will the Ceann Comhairle let us know who has spoken on this motion already?
FINANCIAL RESOLUTION.
The Dáil went into Committee on Finance.
Debate resumed on financial motion by the Minister for Finance (No. 3):
"That it is expedient to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with finance."
It is a long list, and I shall read it if the Deputy wishes.
Is it not in Committee, so that we can speak again?
That is technically so, but as a matter of fact, on a motion of this kind, where you have had Second Reading speeches, it is not usual to speak twice, but the right exists, of course. I think Deputy Matthews moved the adjournment of the debate on the last occasion, and can resume now if he wishes.
This debate is nearly past history now, but I wish to say that I am opposed to tariffs on industrial products, because I think they are against the interests of agriculture, which is the most important industry in the country. That industry is in a more serious condition than the House realises. The majority of this House agrees that we ourselves cannot fix the prices of our agricultural produce. They are fixed for us by a world competitive free market in England. Now, if we cannot get higher prices, is not the only alternative, if we are to market at a profit, to try and reduce the cost of production and the price of marketing? I think that tariffs on industrial products would not tend in this direction. Some Deputies deplore that we have only one customer and one market for our agricultural exports, and that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The reason that we have only one market and one customer is that the British market is the best market we can find. Other markets have been explored and found unsatisfactory. Then, instead of deploring that market, should we not rather take advantage of our proximity and try to make the best use of that market by putting our agricultural surplus products in the best possible condition on that market, as cheaply as possible? Our freights at the present time more or less counteract our advantage and proximity.
I speak on behalf of a large section of labour not represented by the Labour Party in this House, the smaller farmers who are workers to all intents and purposes. They exist by their labour, and anyone who knows their condition will agree they are the worst paid class of labourers in the country. You want to live amongst them to realise the hardships and the difficulties of their existence. Their whole outcry is that they would be all right and able to make ends meet only for the cost of the things they have to buy such as clothes, boots, etc. The small farmers, whose cash income is a very limited one, are the people who are asked to pay for high wages in our protected industries. I do not think that is just or equitable. It is so long since this debate took place that reference to any of the speeches made by Deputies seems like going into past history. Deputy Lemass made a statement in which he said:
"I do not know whether the Ministry are aware of the fact or not, but it is so, that a number of manufacturers of different articles in this country have not applied for the imposition of tariffs on the articles they manufacture, although they believe that it is only through protection that their particular industries can be fostered, because the first result of the imposition of a tariff would be the bringing in here of branches of foreign combines that would crush the native manufacturers."
Does that mean that our manufacturers are inefficient, or does it mean that our labourers are prepared to give a better output to the foreigners than to the native manufacturers, or is it from both causes, and does it mean that tariffs are meant to bolster up inefficiency? Deputy Morrissey made another statement in which he said:
"We ought to face up to realities in this thing and, as Deputy Ryan said, it is not right to talk about increasing the cost of living. Tariffs may increase the cost of living, but it might be a good thing if they did. There was talk of boots costing three shillings more than before the tariff was imposed, but the man who, as a result of the tariff, has a wage which enables him to buy a pair of boots does not worry about that. It does not matter very much to the man who is unemployed, as he has not to worry about the cost of living."
Even if a man who is unemployed is only drawing a mere pittance, it is hard to follow the argument that the cost of living does not worry him. I think it should also be a matter of worry to the Boards of Health, and the taxpayers who have to supply the money that goes to the unemployed, and certainly I think it is a cause of worry to the small farmer who, as I said before, only has a very limited cash income. I think there is something economically wrong in a food-producing country, whose principal export is her surplus food, that nevertheless the cost of living and rate of wages are higher in many of our trades than in the country in which we want to sell our surplus agricultural produce. I do not think we can maintain the high cost of living and high wages in protected industries and hope to sell our agricultural food supplies at a profit in a world competitive and free market.
Professor THRIFT took the Chair.
There are, I suppose, many forms of protection, but we in this country seem to be in the position of always buying the produce we consume and only making rather weak efforts to produce anything that may be necessary. There are reasons for that state of affairs. One may be credit. It may be that the foreign producer is in a position to give longer and more satisfactory conditions of credit than we may be able to do here in our own home market. But I think that, generally speaking, the result of not being able to produce at an economical price is brought about by the more highly organised systems in other countries, so that the revival of the agricultural industry here—the revival is most essential—I do not think can be brought about on a system of development as we go along. We seem to have been developing for a hundred years, certainly for the last seventy-five years, through propaganda, through Departments, and other organisations. We have been attempting to develop the industry, but for one reason or another the methods adopted to develop the industry seem to bring about a rather strange result, and that is, that the remedies seem to be worse than the disease, and we find the industry almost completely killed out to-day. I am inclined to look at the position from this point of view: That suppose we as a nation, spend here on our own market a couple of millions a year on agricultural produce, and suppose that afterwards we find that we can buy that produce for a million and a half in another country, the nation certainly would suffer half a million of loss.
In a short time another position would arise out of that, that is that we had saved wages practically to the amount of half a million, and through that saving we had disemployed people who would have spent half a million pounds in the home market. So the result would seem to be, that although the nation saved that money, in time they would be faced with spending it in some other form, and that is in maintaining the people who were not producing or working. They cannot live on fresh air, they must be maintained, and I believe, from the farming point of view, that is what is taking place to-day in Ireland. Farmers have to carry a number of people who are not producing any wealth, because we are simply buying in those markets abroad and giving employment to workers in foreign countries. It does not follow at all that we have escaped the burden or the necessity of maintaining those people who are not allowed to produce. Deputy Matthews made some remarks about the importance of the British markets. Quite so. The British market, next to another market, is the most important one that we have. The other market that we are in possession of is this market here in our own country.
What is the value of the two?
The British market is the next in value to our own market, because it is the nearest to us. It is the market that is most convenient to us. We have to pay less freights and we are a shorter time out of our money by selling our produce in that market. But the market that is most important and most remunerative is our home market. I call it a development process, and I hold, for one reason or another, that that development process that is on for 75 or 100 years during which we have been trying it out, has not given any results, but that, on the contrary, the industries that we are trying to revive are gradually dying out in spite of that system. Therefore, it is necessary for us to try some other system, and I believe that the system to be adopted and the system that will bring about success and the revival of that industry is protection. It is not possible for us, a nation that has no industries, to adopt the system adopted in England, free trade. I will go a little further and make this remark, but I am certainly not convinced that England is satisfied to-day, or was satisfied even yesterday, with her free trade position. In England they are making efforts, in one direction or another, to adopt the system of protection. She is making those efforts, and you have her system of subsidising. A subsidy is, no doubt, protection; it is only a certain amount of camouflage to adopt a system of subsidies and then proclaim to the world that we are a free trade country. The inclination in England to-day is to return to the system of protection. All countries have been protected. All modern countries are protected. The system of free trade when it was introduced into England, suited England at that moment. It was a country with a big manufacturing population, a country possessed of certain new and important inventions, a country that had developed canalisation, and a country more than anything else that controlled the gold. Those conditions brought about in England a state of affairs that was necessary to compel her to introduce free trade. She had a huge population, all manufacturing for foreign countries, for the colonies and for several countries that were subsidised by surplus gold. The consumers in these countries got the surplus gold, and therefore England had a developed or had an assured market for her goods.
But a change has taken place again and you find that those markets she once possessed are to-day competitors with her, with the result that history is repeating herself and she is going back again to the system of protection. Protection in this country has had, some months ago and some years ago, a good many opponents who argued and stated that once you protect, the consumer pays. That altogether depends on the system you adopt. There are abuses in protected countries, serious abuses which can be eliminated and can be avoided. A needy Minister for Finance, if he had his way, could certainly compel the consumer to pay up. He can certainly interfere with many industries through exorbitant taxation, but under modern conditions and under modern Governments that thing does not seem possible, and cases where the consumer may be compelled to pay will be found to be very few, and if the consumer is compelled to pay he is certainly in the position, as producer, of being able to pay. That point of being able to pay is an all-important one. It is very little use to a man or to a community to have a low cost of living when they have no money to live by. It makes not the slightest bit of difference to have a high cost of living when you have the cash to buy the necessaries of life. That is altogether and completely the essence of satisfactory progress. Protection means this—England to-day and we ourselves could get over all our difficulties if we could manage to do one thing, and that is to subsidise the consumers. The banks, no doubt, are in a position to do so. They did it during the war. It was certainly very effective from the point of the producer and from the point of view certainly of the consumer. The consumer had money and that money found its way to the producer and all were happy. But that system could not be kept permanently in use. It had to be toned down. Certain countries adopted a gradual process and other countries a much more abrupt process. In the cases where the process was abrupt certain disasters in business occurred. Bankruptcies became frequent and the country got into an unfortunate position.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Will the Deputy move the adjournment of the debate?
Mr. O'REILLY
Yes, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned accordingly.
Could we find out how many Deputies would wish to speak on this motion on its resumption?
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
I do not know if Deputies could give any information on that at present. Can Deputies say how many would wish to speak on the tariff motion?
My remarks in connection with the prisoners will be very short. I am not going to speak at great length.
It is not in connection with Deputy Ruttledge's motion at all. It is on the tariff motion.
We will be glad to have it concluded as soon as possible.
Are there any others to speak on this motion besides Deputy O'Reilly?
I do not think so.
Could it be finished now?
It could not.