It is the purpose of this Party to oppose the granting of this Vote, not merely because we think that it would be largely a waste of money to vote any funds for the maintenance of the Tariff Commission as at present constituted, but also because we are of opinion that the utility of that Commission has been impaired by the fact that it is not working in accordance with a strict interpretation of the Act under which it was established. Section 2, sub-section (2), of the Tariff Commission Act of 1926 states: "The Commission shall consider every application referred to it under this section by the Minister for Finance and shall report to the said Minister on the several aspects specified in the schedule of this Act of such application or such of these aspects as are applicable thereto." Then in the Schedule to the Act there are set out the various headings under which it is required to have the facts relating to the industry in respect of which the application is made recorded and presented to the Minister.
Now I think that it is the obvious intention of the Act that a commission should be established which would investigate the facts concerning any industry which applies for protection and to present these facts to the Minister and through the Minister to the Dáil, in such a manner as to enable both the Minister and the Dáil to secure a clear picture of all the conditions relating to that industry, and to supply the information which would be required to enable a wise decision to be arrived at in relation to the application. It was obviously a matter for the Minister to decide whether or not the application should be granted and subsequently to justify his decision in this House. If the Dáil possessed the same information as the Minister possessed then they would be able to appraise the wisdom of his decision and vote accordingly. It is quite obviously not the intention of the Act that the facts should be presented in a partisan manner, or in such a manner as to influence the Minister or to influence the Dáil in favour of a particular view in respect of the application.
The imposition of a tariff on any commodity imported into this country is a matter of national policy, to be decided by the elected representatives of the people, and not by any commission composed of people outside this House. Nor do we think that any such commission or any body of civil servants should be given facilities for influencing the minds of the Dáil or the minds of the Ministry in respect of any such matter. The Commission established under this Act and in respect of which this Vote is required did not, in any of the reports which they have submitted to the Dáil, confine themselves merely to a presentation of the facts. They went further than that, and, I contend, further than the Act justified them in going in presenting a recommendation in respect of these applications, and they presented the facts in such a manner as to support the recommendation which they made. We maintain that is contrary to the spirit of the Act and to wise public policy. If a tariff commission served any useful function it would be the function merely to collect facts and present these facts in an impartial manner to enable the Ministry and the Dáil to make up their minds on the full knowledge and wisdom of the application. The facts should not, under any circumstances, be presented in a manner which would be likely to influence the decision of the Dáil, nor should they be accompanied by a recommendation from the Commission. In the case of the report on the application for a tariff on rosary beads the Commissioners not merely made a recommendation with respect to the application, but they qualified their recommendation by suggesting that a Customs duty of thirty-three and one-third per cent. should be imposed for a period of five years. The effect of such a qualification being in the report might possibly work out in a manner detrimental to the interests of the State. The duty on rosary beads coming to this State was imposed by the Dáil, and will be removed when the majority of the Dáil decides it should be removed. A person, however anxious to avail of the amount of protection afforded, and to invest money in that industry, might be hesitant about doing so in view of the qualifications appearing in the Commission's recommendation, because they would see the possibility of the Government following that recommendation, and at the end of five years after they had invested their money, removing the tariff and allowing the conditions which existed heretofore to become operative again. Not merely however do the Commissioners submit that qualification to their recommendation, but they actually support it in a paragraph of the report which, I think I can say—I do not want to use a strong word—for unnecessary insolence it would be hard to beat. They say:—
For this reason they recommend that a customs duty be imposed, but because they believe that the success of the duty will depend in part on the energy and enterprise with which the Applicants take advantage of the measure of protection afforded them, they recommend that the imposition of the duty should be limited to a period of five years in the first instance. So imposed, they trust that the duty will act as a stimulus to those in control in the industry, inducing them to tune up their business to the highest possible pitch of proficiency in order that when the period of five years comes to a close the industry may be in a position to satisfy the Minister for Finance that it merits a continuation of support because of the progress made in the interval.
Now a Commission consisting of three Civil Servants should not be asked to express their hopes in respect of the efficiency or lack of efficiency of any of the controllers of any Irish industry, nor do I think it is right that this Dáil should provide these Civil Servants with facilities to express their views on matters of that kind. The Commission was established to get facts, and should confine its activities to getting facts, keeping expressions of likes or dislikes or hopes from outside the limits of the report they present to the Dáil. In the case of the application for the tariff on margarine another serious point of a somewhat dissimilar nature arises. In this case they stated that they considered that unless they could secure to consumers in the Saorstát the benefit of every reduction in price, quality for quality, which consumers here would enjoy in the absence of a tariff they would not feel justified in recommending a tariff at all, for this reason, that they requested the applicants to formulate and submit a definite undertaking with regard to the price and quality of margarine made and offered for sale in Saorstát Eireann in the event of a tariff being imposed. Now, the action of the Commissioners in requesting the applicants to formulate a definite undertaking with respect to the price at which they would sell their commodity in the event of a tariff being imposed did not operate seriously in this case because a satisfactory undertaking was given by the applicants, but it is quite obvious that if that procedure on behalf of the Commissioners is made a precedent it might prove to be very injudicious and injurious to the best interests of the people. If is obvious the Commissioners contemplate making such a procedure operate in other cases, because they add later on in the same paragraph: "In the absence of satisfactory conditions"— the satisfactory conditions they refer to are the conditions referred to in one of the margarine factories in the country—"no undertaking, no matter how definite, would influence us in our recommendation." I would remind you of a recommendation which, according to the Act, they are not asked to give: "We think it important that this should be fully understood in view of the possibility of undertakings as to price and quality beng offered in connection with other applications."
Again, whether a tariff should be imposed or not is a matter for this Dáil to decide with knowledge of the facts, even if the facts would be that the imposition of a tariff would increase the commodity in price. It is easy to conceive an instance in which in the interests of public policy the Dáil would impose a tariff, even though that imposition of a tariff would result in an increase in the price of that commodity to the consumer. It is not a matter in which the decision or opinion of the Dáil should be influenced by the opinion of members of this Commission as to what should be the action taken under certain circumstances.
It is, however, in the report on the application for a tariff on flour that we come up against the most serious objections to the manner of the working of the Commission. In this report the personal opinions of the Commissioners and the facts they ascertained in relation to an industry are so intermingled that it is practically impossible to disentangle them and distinguish one from the other. They decided to recommend against the granting of a tariff, and then proceeded to write a pamphlet to justify their recommendation. There is, throughout the whole report, a definitely partisan attitude in relation to the application. In many parts of the report they repeatedly overstep the bounds of their domain and express opinions on matters of public policy and national importance which do not properly come within their sphere at all. They make repeated ex cathedra statements which they do not support by any facts, or alleged facts, in many cases. It would take too long to refer to every paragraph in this report to which objection might be taken, but I would like to refer to a few of them.
In reporting on the extent and relative importance of the industry, they preface their remarks by a statement to the effect that the number of mills, however, is not so important as their capacity. That statement is given here as if it were an axiom, something in respect to which there was general agreement, whereas it is common knowledge that there is, in this country, very considerable disagreement on a matter of that kind. Personally, I am of opinion that the number of mills is just as important as the capacity of the mills, because the members in this Commission appear to have become confused to a remarkable extent with respect to the meanings of such words as "capacity" and "efficiency."
It is a matter of public policy, and a question which will have to be decided whether the policy of the Government should be to strive towards the concentration of industries in large towns or centralisation in big factories, or whether their policy should be to strive for the de-centralisation of industry and its ruralisation. The Commissioners, however, appear to be so captivated by what they saw on the Mersey-side that they come and lay down general laws for Irish industry. Their entire remarks, with respect to the extent and relative importance of the flour industry of this State are all coloured by their errors in the first instance, because they are based on the statement that the number of mills is not as important as their capacity. There are, however, more serious objections to their reports than that. In paragraph 60 they say:—
We consider that the Saorstát farmer is interested in flour-milling mainly from two points of view, viz.: (1) he looks to the nearest flour-miller as a prospective purchaser of any wheat he may grow beyond the requirements of his own farm, and (2) he depends upon flour-milling for the supply of such wheat offals as he requires for the feeding of his stock.
The Commissioners, of course, are not interested in such questions as nationality, and do not seem to consider the possibility of an Irish farmer possessing any patriotism, whereas if any effort were made to ascertain the facts I think it would be found that the majority of the farmers of this country would be prepared, even at inconvenience to themselves, to support a policy which was in the best national interests, such as a policy of protection for the flour industry, in our opinion, would be. But the Commission go on to say:—
On the information available to us we have formed the opinion that the existence of a flour-mill in his locality is useful to the farmer, since it provides a market for his wheat and secures the local production of bran and pollard, two most useful feeding stuffs for farm livestock. The encouragement of milling by the imposition of a tariff on flour would not necessarily improve the returns from wheat-growing in all parts of the country, though it would increase the supply of offals, and thus, by reducing the price thereof, be of advantage to farmers. The Commission is not, however, satisfied that under present conditions these benefits can be secured to the general economic advantage of the State by a tariff on flour.
Who wants to know whether the Commission are satisfied or not? Who wants to know their views? We want the facts. It is a question for the Deputies of this House to be satisfied and not the persons who were appointed under the terms of the 1926 Act to carry out certain statutory duties conferred on them in relation to an application for a tariff. Throughout the whole of this report they have repeatedly exceeded the proper sphere of their work, expressed opinions and presented the facts in such a manner as to convey the impression that they were under the delusion that an ultimate decision in a matter of this kind rested with themselves.
In respect to one paragraph in the schedule under which they have reported on the effects which the granting in whole or in part of the concession asked for in the application would be likely to have on the public revenue of Saorstát Eireann the Commissioners refused to carry out their statutory duties and say: "Since we do not recommend the granting of a tariff we do not give any opinion of the effect on the revenue." They actually refused to place in the hands of members of the Dáil the information which, by statute, they are bound to give in the schedule. It is a matter for the Dáil to decide whether the flour-milling industry is to be protected or not, and if the Dáil wants that information it is the duty of this Committee to provide it, and because this Commission does not recomsio mend the granting of the application they actually failed in their statutory duty to provide for the Dáil the information which they were set up to secure.
Again, in the paragraph of the schedule which asks them to report on the minimum amount of custom duty which will be probably necessary for the successful conduct in Saorstát Eireann of the industry in respect of which the application is made they say, at the beginning of the paragraph:
"We propose to indicate, under these headings, our opinion as to the future of flour-milling in the Saorstát if no tariff is imposed."
They set themselves a judicial function at this stage. I suggest that the members of this Dáil and the country are not interested as to what opinion these Commissioners may have as to the future of the flour-milling industry in this country if no tariff is imposed. We can form our own opinion on that head. The presentation of the report in this manner is such that we take the strongest possible objection to it. We object to public money being spent on what is, in the long run, only a propagandist pamphlet. If publication is to be made of propagandist matter I suggest that a grant be given to Professor O'Rahilly for his pamphlet on the question, because it is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those I represent a much more useful publication than this report from the Tariff Commission.
