The Minister had better watch his flanks in any proposition to hand this matter over entirely to the Department of Agriculture. I reveal no secrets when I say that the question of the imposition of tariffs on certain agricultural instruments was the subject of considerable contention. The industrial interests said they wanted protection against the greater saleability in the Irish market of extensively advertised foreign agricultural implements with which the Irish manufacturers, because of their relatively limited resources, could not compete.
It seemed to me at the time when we were in Government that the particular firms who had been able to sell, strangely enough, in the export market and to sell a substantial number of implements in the export market, were finding it extremely difficult to hold the home market because of the mass advertising they had to contend with on the home market and because of the fact that the sale of imported implements was tied in on a hire purchase basis and the suppliers of the imported implements were disposed to make it a condition with the retailers that if they were selling an imported implement they could not stock an Irish part. All that contributed immensely to the difficulties of the Irish firms, both of which are located in Wexford.
It was desired to protect this industry in Wexford, which has been there for a few generations, and it would be an appalling situation if the only two Irish industries making ploughing parts and that have been making them for the past 120 years should, when governmental control is in the hands of Irish people, disappear from the market entirely and that we would sit back and be content to use foreign-made agricultural implements.
However, the problem was to convince the farmer that the Irish-made ploughs and parts were the best and, with a view to finding a via media by which the various angles and outlooks could be composed, we set up a committee consisting of representatives of the agricultural industry and representatives of the agricultural implements manufacturers, presided over by a very sagacious chairman in the person of Dr. Beddy. I agree with the Minister that Dr. Beddy should be relieved of that task as soon as possible because of the immense burdens which he cheerfully bears. At the same time the Minister will recognise that a person with his talents and skill was a very good selection at the time in order to launch the committee in conditions in which they would not have the element of self-destruction within the committee itself.
It was certainly arranged then that this body would meet from time to time, that the agricultural interests would say to the industrial interests what, if any, were the deficiencies in the agricultural implements parts and that the industrial interests would endeavour to meet the needs of agriculture by adjusting their manufacture to comply with the needs of agriculture.
In extremely difficult circumstances, a body of that kind was probably the best kind of arrangement that could be made, and if the two interests can be tied in permanently it may bring into this whole question an atmosphere of goodwill and amity which probably would not be present if these two interests were allowed to grow apart, each considering its problems in its own exclusive and insulated way.
I would, therefore, hope that the committee would continue to function for the purpose of endeavouring to evolve here an agricultural implements industry which will respond to the known needs of the agricultural community and so that we can not only maintain the existing industry in Wexford but perfect that industry—and it probably can stand a fair amount of perfecting—to such an extent that the question of the continuation of an Irish agricultural implements industry will not be challenged in the future.
My experience in handling that whole problem was that it was extremely difficult to convince the Department of Agriculture that Irish-made ploughs were in fact satisfactory ploughs. It was extremely difficult to convince them that farmers should not be allowed to buy ploughs any place in the world that they liked. It seems to me that here are firms that have given evidence that their products are as good as those produced anywhere else. Many of the ploughing competitions in the country and outside it have been won by the ploughs made by these particular firms. Therefore, they are entitled to say to a well-protected Irish agriculture: "We have to live in Ireland also and if you are protected by various tariffs and, better still, by all kinds of other restrictions, it is not unreasonable that the implements manufacturer should be permitted to survive in Ireland also."
If the Department of Agriculture is to run this whole committee without adequate representation of those concerned, I am afraid the committee will have a rough time. Certainly, the industrial representatives will have a rough time unless there is some direction in principle given to the committee or to the Department of Agriculture that their function is to see that Irish agricultural implements and machinery are worked on Irish land. In these days, when there are such large imports of that heavy type of machinery, surely it is desirable that we should do everything we possibly can to maintain an industry of that kind which, speaking from recollection, has survived about 120 years. If there is an acceptance of that principle, well and good; I can see it working well. However, I am afraid, from my past experience in connection with that problem, that the Department of Agriculture will take the line: "The world is your selection place when you want agricultural implements."
It is not unreasonable to ask agriculture to use Irish-made ploughs and agricultural implements in order to maintain here an Irish agricultural implements industry. If we kill that industry through want of support then the price we will pay for imported agricultural implements will be substantially higher than at present. Putting it at its worst, an Irish industry at least keys the price of the imported article to something like the Irish production price level. If there is no Irish production at all, you will have to pay whatever price the man outside with the agricultural implement wants to charge you because you have to buy it, in any case, and he is the seller. I hope, therefore, this matter will be handled in such a way as to give the two firms concerned all the assurances they reasonably require that their industry will adequately be protected and that they, for their part, will make every possible effort to ensure that the articles they produce are as perfect as it is possible to make them and that they will respond at all times to the requirements of Irish agriculture.
How many persons is it expected will be employed under this duty dealing with paper and felt flower pots? My recollection is that about three people will be employed. I do not think they will be employed full-time; they will have to do other work as well. I have the idea that the paper, probably, has to be imported. It seems very doubtful wisdom to have a tariff at this rate on an industry which offers employment to so few people. It would be much better to encourage a national industry for the making of clay flower pots, for which we have the soil. They could probably be made here by machinery supplying our total requirements if the problem were tackled basically from the standpoint of trying to create such an industry for the country as a whole. To utilise a Bill described as an Imposition of Duties Bill, which was made under the Emergency Powers (Imposition of Duties) Act, is to use very high-powered machinery for the purpose of providing employment for two or three people especially when, I think, the employment is not, in fact, whole-time for the production of this commodity. The position may have changed but that is my recollection.
