With regard to the remaining amendments on the Order Paper, it may be well that I should deal with points of order arising on them before resuming the Committee Stage. Amendment 3 goes pretty far, but I am prepared to allow it. On the decision on it, however, will depend Amendment 6. Amendments 4 and 5 are outside the scope of the Bill. Amendments 7 to 11 are in order. Amendment 12 falls if 10 is accepted, and 13 is consequent on Amendment 10. Amendments 14 and 15 are in order. Amendment 16 depends on Amendment 14. Amendment 17 may be moved. Amendments 18, 19, 20 and 21 are, I think, intended to carry out certain alterations if Amendment 3, to insert a new section, were carried. Amendments 22, 23 and 24, dealing with the insertion of the word "proposal" instead of the word "application," are dependent on Amendment 14. Amendment 25 depends on Amendment 7. Amendment 26, for a preamble, proposes to introduce into the Bill a principle which was not in the Bill as passed on Second Reading, namely, that "it is expedient to extend the protection of home industries by means of import duties," and is, therefore, out of order.
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY (PROTECTION) BILL, 1925. - TARIFF COMMISSION BILL, 1926—COMMITTEE (RESUMED).
Inasmuch as you have given me the choice of moving No. 3 or No. 6, I prefer to move No. 6.
I think that is a wise choice.
I move:—
To delete the section and substitute a new section as follows:—
"(1) Whenever it appears to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that it is expedient to secure full examination of any proposal for encouraging industrial development in Saorstát Eireann by the imposition, alteration or removal of a customs duty on the importation of goods of a particular class or description the said Minister may, if he so thinks fit, refer such proposals to the Commission for examination and report.
(2) The Commission shall examine every proposal referred to it under the section by the Minister and shall report to the said Minister on the several aspects specified in the Schedule to this Act of such proposal or such of those aspects as are applicable thereto.
(3) When examining any proposal referred to it as aforesaid the Commission shall hear any person who desires so to be heard and who in the opinion of the Commission is substantially representative of persons, trades or interests (including any association or body of consumers) who would or might reasonably be expected to be affected by the decision of the Minister in respect to the subject of inquiry."
The greater part of this proposed new section is already embodied in the section in the Bill, with certain alterations. The proposal is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce may be brought into the question as to expediency. He, as the Minister who would necessarily be in touch with the condition of trade and industry, would be the Minister who normally and in the mind of the average man would be expected to deal with the examination of proposals for encouraging industrial development. I do not know whether any Deputy thinks that the question of industrial development, the starting of industries, or the creation of new opportunities for employment, is primarily the function of the Minister for Finance, but my understanding of the position of the Ministers concerned is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has that matter under his control. I read previously the reference in the Ministers and Secretaries Act to the functions of the Minister for Finance. Under the same Act we have the functions of the Minister for Industry and Commerce as follows:
The Department of Industry and Commerce which shall comprise the administration and business generally of public services in connection with trade, commerce, industry and labour, industrial and commercial organisations and combinations, industrial and commercial statistics, transport, shipping, natural resources, and all powers, duties and functions connected with the same, including the promotion of trade and commerce, by means of educational grants, etc.
The inquiry that it is proposed to hand over to this Commission is obviously connected with trade, commerce, industry, and labour and industrial and commercial statistics, and one would naturally think that it would be the function of the Department of Industry and Commerce to undertake these inquiries. So that the opening of this proposed new section says:
Whenever it appears to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that it is expedient to secure full examination of any proposal for encouraging industrial development in Saorstát Eireann by the imposition, alteration or removal of a Customs duty on the importation of goods of a particular class or description the said Minister may, if he so thinks fit, refer such proposals to the Commission for examination and report.
So that the first paragraph of the proposed new section fits in exactly with the functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce as defined in the Ministers and Secretaries Act. Consequently the Commission's duty, having examined these proposals, would be to report to the Minister on the several aspects specified in the schedule. In the third sub-section of the proposed new section, I have followed the line which proceeds in the third sub-section of Section 2 of the Bill, but have included "any association or body of consumers." The sub-section in the Bill says:
When considering any application referred to it as aforesaid the Commission shall hear every person who desires so to be heard and appears to the Commission to be substantially representative of persons, trades, or interests who would or might reasonably be expected to be affected by the granting or refusing, in whole or in part, of the concessions asked for in such application.
My proposal is to alter that in this way:
When examining any proposal referred to it as aforesaid the Commission shall hear any person who desires so to be heard and who in the opinion of the Commission is substantially representative of persons, trades or interests (including any association or body of consumers) who would or might reasonably be expected to be affected by the decision of the Minister in respect to the subject of inquiry.
The chief alterations there are the reference to proposals as distinct from applications, and the inclusion of "any association or body of consumers." There seems to be no thought in the section as drafted that the consumers of goods are interested, and while I am glad to support and give the utmost weight to the arguments of the producers of goods affected, or the intermediate consumers of goods which might enter into manufacture, I think it is essential, if there is to be a real examination of any proposal, that associations of consumers should be heard if they so desire. But the main change sought to be effected by the proposal is to make the Minister for Industry and Commerce the Minister who will set the inquiry in motion. I think that that should commend itself to Deputies. As I said on another amendment, this should not be a commission set up by a department, and having regard mainly to the revenue aspect of any proposal for protective tariffs, that it is clearly a matter, in the first place, for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and that it is an application to him and a reference by him that should set going the machinery for inquiry. It is on these grounds that I move the amendment.
Deputy Johnson's amendment would widen the duties of the Commission to an extent that the Government does not desire. I explained when introducing the Bill that we proposed to ask the Commission to deal with a certain type of proposals which would be supported and defended in a particular way, proposals in regard to which it ought to be comparatively easy to have most of the facts sought out and presented to the Commission. Cases might arise when the Government would wish proposals to be examined which did not fall within the scope of the Bill and the ordinary scope of the Commission, and we felt that this class of case would be best examined by some kind of an ad hoc body. A Commission that is set up to do a particular kind of work and conduct a particular kind of examination ought not to be asked to do a different class of work and to conduct an examination which would require a different kind of approach. I gave the case of sugar beet as an example of the kind of thing that might arise again and as a type of case which would be better dealt with by some committee set up to deal with it specially, than by the Tariff Commission. The whole principle of the Bill is that agricultural production should receive the same attention as industrial production, and one of the reasons why the Minister who was made responsible for the Commission was the Minister for Finance, was simply that he was departmentally neutral as between industry and agriculture and that it would be contrary to the general scheme of the Bill if the Minister for Industry and Commerce could refer proposals to the Committee and the Minister for Lands and Agriculture could not, because, while so far the Government has not been satisfied that by means of tariffs any good can be done to agriculture, that view is not accepted by everybody. There are people who perhaps would say that in general it is true that nothing much can be done for agriculture by means of tariffs, in certain respects help can be given to agriculture, and, as a matter of fact, in so far as the assistance that we are giving to sugar beet is a tariff assistance—and it is in part a tariff assistance—we are doing something for one branch of agriculture.
I do not think it should be contemplated that we say that we accept the position, as we do accept it, that tariffs can do good for industry and we are prepared to consider proposals for further tariffs in relation to industry, but that we have closed our minds in regard to the application of tariffs to the advancement of agriculture. We have not closed our minds, and we would be prepared to consider on the merits any proposals for tariffs applied to any agricultural commodity, in the same way as we would consider tariffs as applied to a manufactured article. We did, in the last Budget, apply in a very small way a tariff to an article which is more an article of agricultural produce than of manufacture, and the Minister for Lands and Agriculture intimated that in that line he was perhaps prepared to go somewhat further. I object to Deputy Johnson's amendment on two grounds. I object to it because it proposes to give certain powers to the Minister for Industry and Commerce which are not given to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and because it proposes to oblige the Commission to carry out a type of investigation that would not be in line with their proposed day-to-day work. If you get a committee to conduct original investigations you would, perhaps, choose your personnel and staff differently from the personnel and staff that you would choose if the Commission were sitting somewhat judicially to hear cases made for and against and to arrive at the facts as a result of the information that in the main was brought to its notice by people who are interested, one way or another.
I do not say that the Commission would conduct no original investigations. I think it would have to conduct some, but, in general, it would be up to other people to conduct the original investigations and to put the main-facts before the Commission. The Commission would have plenty of work for a considerable period in dealing with proposals actually made by manufacturers, and, if other proposals have to be considered, they can best be considered by appointing some ad hoc body. I think there are no industries existing in respect to which the Minister may want to put forward proposals and in regard to which some substantial number of those engaged in these industries would not themselves put forward, or have not already put forward, proposals. Any proposals from the Minister would be likely to relate to industries which have not been brought into existence here and that sort of investigation would be an entirely different type of investigation from that on which the Commission would be ordinarily engaged.
I regret that the Minister has not seen his way to accept the point of view expressed in this section. The only sound argument he used was, perhaps, that this section was confined to industrial development and that the Minister for Agriculture might have something to say in connection with agricultural proposals. As regards that point, I should like to point out that this section was intended to form part of a scheme and that a section which the Ceann Comhairle has ruled out gave power of inquiry into agricultural proposals.
The Minister made the case that there might be a proposal that should be dealt with by a committee specially set up. That would not be affected by my proposal. This section only refers to proposals which the Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer to the Commission. It does not deprive him of the power to refer any question he wishes to any special committee which he may set up. The Minister also spoke of the line of approach. That, as I have already said, is the chief objection I have to the proposal in sub-section (2)—that the line of approach is faulty and liable to create an entirely wrong outlook in regard to any proposal for a tariff on imports. The Minister is encouraging us to think of this whole question from the point of view of the pecuniary interests of the manufacturers, and he is obliterating the effect upon the national life or the possibility even that proposals may be sound and yet may not be desired by the manufacturers. I think that line of approach in the section in the Bill is wrong, because it only deals with applications made by interested parties. The section I propose would allow any proposal the Minister would think desirable to be submitted for inquiry, whether it came from the manufacturers or from the dream of a citizen while lying on the sand-banks at Portmarnock. However, the Minister has refused to give any support to the proposal, and I leave it to the Dáil to decide.
There was one point with which the Minister did not deal in his reply. That was with reference to sub-section (3). Would the Minister consider inserting in the Bill the words referred to in Deputy Johnson's amendment—"including any association or body of consumers"? The Bill as it stands does not apparently give a right of hearing to representatives of consumers. The words are "persons, trades, or interests who would or might reasonably be expected to be affected ..." There are many associations of consumers who might wish to be heard. Labour organisations particularly have a right to be heard. As the Bill stands, I do not see how these organisations can put their case before the Commission. Perhaps the Minister would consider the question of inserting those words.
The position is that the Commission can hear anybody it likes, but the Bill prescribes that certain people shall be heard. It gives the right to certain people to be heard. The insertion of these words would make it mandatory on the Commission to hear quite a large number of consumers' leagues if they put forward witnesses. As the Commission is obliged to report on the effect of any proposal on the cost of living, I think it will be obliged to get sufficient evidence to satisfy itself as to the consumer's point of view. I do not think it would be wise to make it mandatory on the Commission to hear associations of consumers. They might do far better by selecting individual consumers, or other persons, rather than associations which might be got up to give evidence.
May I suggest to the Minister that the very fact that there is put in in sub-section (3) a mandatory clause saying that the Commission shall hear certain people, and that there is no other section of the Bill which even suggests that other people should be heard will be taken as a prohibition against the hearing of other people? When you specifically include certain classes of people, there is implied a refusal to hear others.
I do not think that is so. I think the Commission has full power to hear all the evidence it wants to hear. It was suggested that a limited amount of evidence might, perhaps, be taken, and it was considered necessary that some direction should be put in the Bill as to the people who would be heard, practically as of right. Of course, there is discretion in the Commission to decide whether or not they are substantially representative of any interest, but there is a clear direction to the Commission to hear people who are substantially representative of any interest. The intention was no more than that, and I do not think it can be held that there is anything to prevent the Commission hearing anybody it likes. There is no intention that its power should be limited in any way. Any investigating body set up has prima facie the right to hear the necessary evidence to enable it to come to conclusions. The Commission is asked to report on a number of things, including the cost, efficiency and conditions of labour in other countries. That clearly implies that evidence must be heard other than evidence which sub-section (3) of Section 2 makes it mandatory on the Commission to hear.
On behalf of Deputy Davin, I move Amendment 7:—
"In sub-section (1), line 33, to delete the word ‘modification' and substitute the word ‘alteration.'"
The Minister has intimated that it is not his intention that "modification" should preclude increase of an existing tariff on any article, but it may appear to the Commission, notwithstanding anything said in this House, that "modification," in fact, means reduction. The word is capable of different meanings. I find in one dictionary the meaning is given as "to change somewhat the form or qualities of; to alter somewhat." The secondary meaning is given as "to limit or reduce in extent or degree; to moderate, to qualify." In another dictionary the meaning is given as "to set bounds to; to moderate; to change the form or quality of; to alter slightly; to vary." I quote those definitions to show that there is a possibility that an interpretation would be given this word as a result of which no proposal for alteration by way of addition would be heard by the Commission. I think the generally understood meaning and common use of the word is to alter downwards or to moderate. I therefore propose to substitute for the word "modification" the word "alteration," so that there may be no question in anybody's mind that the change can be effected by raising or reducing an existing tariff.
This is not a very serious question. I did not ask the Attorney-General for any view on this point, but I asked the draftsman as soon as I saw the amendment. He assured me that the word "modification" would have the same meaning as "alteration," in regard to proposals to raise or lower tariffs, and he preferred his own word. I do not know whether there is any objection to changing it to "alteration," but I am assured that the word "modify" means what Deputy Johnson desires to have in the Bill. As we have all our Bills coming from one office, I presume the same word would be used in other Bills where a similar meaning was desired. Being assured that the meaning is what the Deputy desires, I prefer to let the Bill stand as drafted.
The word "modification" has been translated "athru," after considerable perturbation of mind on the part of the translators. On seeing the word first they were of opinion that the simple meaning was "maolu," which would signify lessening or reducing or blunting. After some research in the dictionaries they came to the conclusion that that was not correct and they used the word "athru," so that the draftsman and the translators were of the same opinion.
That strengthens my case. The fact that there are two or three average men who have already assumed that the meaning of the word was to lower or to reduce, may well indicate that the Commission, which will be presumably composed of average men, would interpret it as the average man would interpret it. They would not be judges versed in the law and, consequently, being placed in the position of interpreting this measure, they will interpret it as the average man will interpret it.
I feel inclined to stand by the draftsman's version. There is really nothing in it.
If the Minister's interpretation is accepted by the Commission, then there is nothing in it; but supposing it is not, and supposing Deputy McCullough, for instance, wanted an increase in a particular duty and the Commission considered they were not bound by this, and that they were only allowed to modify, what would the position be?
I think I can say that the Attorney-General would stand by the draftsman.
Amendment put and negatived.
I beg to move:—
"To delete the section."
I want to seek the deletion of the section, and, therefore, I will oppose the motion that the section stand part of the Bill. Again it is a question of the validity, the wisdom, of this method of approach. It is presumed that persons interested, who are expecting to make money out of the change, will be prepared to put down a fee of possibly £100 to buy an inquiry. It is a sum which the Commission may reduce to not less than £10. I think that is quite unreasonable.
The Commission is to have power to make the fee anything up to £100, and presumably the Commission is going to ask for that fee before the inquiry begins. It will not know the case that is to be made or the amount of research that is required until after the inquiry has begun. Then there would be an attempt either to reduce or increase the sum originally fixed. For fear that inquiries may extend beyond the contemplated or expected range, the tendency will be to impose a fee of £100 in every case, with a possible hope thrown out that if the inquiry does not extend too widely there may be a refund, though there is nothing said about a refund in the Bill.
I think the principle involved is a bad one, and the working out of that principle as proposed in the section may well cause trouble. The revenue likely to be obtained is not going to be very great unless the maximum sum is charged every time. When it is borne in mind that before the Commission touches the matter there must have been a prima facie case made to the Minister, then again it seems to me to be undesirable that a charge of this kind should be made. Surely, if the Minister can be convinced that a sufficiently good case is made to refer an inquiry to the Commission, that should obviate the need for making any charge upon those making the application.
I cannot understand what case can be made for this unless it is to regard this fixing of a tariff as purely a private venture, and persons who may hope to profit by it are to pay something on account in the way of purchase money. I think that is an entirely vicious principle to insert in the Bill, and I hope the Committee will not accept this section.
This amendment is very necessary. I think it is disgraceful that people should be fined for trying to develop the industries of the country, and that is what this section amounts to. It is quite obvious that if the Commission are to do their work properly they will have to charge a maximum fine in every case. The Commission will have to examine every case, compare it with the costs in other countries, and with relative efficiency and conditions in other countries.
How the Commission are going to get that information I do not know, unless they are going on a tour round the world. The expenses will be very considerable, and if the Commission are to carry out to the letter the provisions of this measure as it stands now, the expenses will be very high and, consequently, they will impose this maximum fine on everybody who has the temerity to suggest protection in regard to some home industries. I think that is undesirable.
Looking at the matter from the merely theoretical standpoint, a good deal may be said for Deputy Johnson's amendment; but the provision is inserted in the Bill to deal with the actual situation and with the probabilities as we see them. The Commission will have quite enough work to do for a considerable period dealing with serious and meritorious proposals. It is desirable that it should be saved as far as possible from wasting time on trivial or frivolous matters, or on proposals which would be initiated but not pursued.
It is true there is power in the Bill under which the Minister for Finance need not submit proposals to the Commission; but it is not intended to use that power except to exclude proposals that on the face of them appear to be ridiculous and appear to be such as would involve absolute waste of time. It would be impossible in practice, in view of the pressure that would be applied, for the Minister for Finance to refuse to send to the Commission any proposal which was not such as would be scouted by anybody who would hear it outlined. People would submit a proposal that had not, perhaps, very much in it, but if the Minister for Finance refused to send it to the Commission it might be suggested that he was afraid to have it examined or to have the facts disclosed; he would be forced to avoid a deluge of attack and to send proposals to the Commission that could get any support at all or that anybody would be favourably impressed with.
Broadly speaking, all proposals, except proposals indisputably ridiculous, must be sent to the Commission. There is an obligation on the Commission, once proposals are referred to it, to investigate them and hear statements for and against them. Once a proposal comes before the Commission a considerable amount of the time of the Commission and its staff is bound to be occupied. What is desired, then, is that people shall be subject to some payment to cause them to give consideration to their own application in advance of making it and before they take up the time of Commission with it. It might easily happen that somebody would put forward a proposal for, say, the manufacture of bootlaces here.
It might be a very good thing.
It might be. I will take any other article the Deputy likes to mention. I only indicate it as a thing which I think would not be a very good proposition, because I think there is not a consumption here to justify the setting up of such a manufacture. I do not want to use that more than as a name for the purpose of argument. A proposal might be put up, certain suggestions might be put forward and prospects held out, and the Minister for Finance could not say they were clearly ridiculous.
Deputy Johnson said the manufacture of bootlaces might be a very good proposal. That would have to be referred to the Commission and the Commission would have to spend time investigating it. The people who put up that proposal might not be very serious about it. We often find people who are very good at throwing out suggestions and, to insure that the time of the Commission would not be wasted if any such proposal comes before it, it is thought desirable that some small sum should be paid by those who want to take up the time of the Commission considering their proposals, delaying necessarily the hearing of other proposals.
Proposals can be made to cover articles now embraced under one tariff; Deputy Johnson indicated that the other night. We have a single tariff on apparel, but there are hundreds of different classes of apparel and you might have scores of applications coming in for a higher rate for articles now charged simply 15 per cent. You might have very large numbers of proposals coming before the Commission, and it is essential that the Commission should deal only with people who put them forward seriously, who are prepared to submit evidence and who are going to pursue the application when opposition is offered. As regards written cases, you might have certain people who would put these up to the Commission, but a mere preliminary examination of them might take up a considerable amount of time. The people who put them up, on receiving queries and demands from the Commission for further statements of fact, might begin to be less enthusiastic about their applications and might decide to go no further with them.
In cases like that it might mean that the time of the Commission and its staff had been occupied for a week. The provision in the Bill is not to make the Commission self-supporting or to go any distance towards that. It is simply to weed out a certain class of application in what we regard as the best and most practicable way of doing so. We have some such provision in the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act. Under that Act people who make application for a guarantee must pay a certain fee. The object of that was to prevent a waste of time on proposals that were not really serious. It might have been said that the Minister for Industry and Commerce could weed out such applications himself and not let them go to the Committee. The argument that I have already used would apply there, that pressure that could not well be resisted would be brought to bear on the Minister to allow an investigation. Otherwise it would be sure to be immediately asserted that there was some hidden reason for preventing an investigation. It was thought better to send all the applications to the Committee unless they were very bad indeed. Once that is done the wheels are set in motion, the staff is occupied with them and time must be spent on investigations, and no fee that could be fixed would eliminate that. There are people who would put up quite impracticable proposals and who probably would be prepared to pay a fee. There are others who would put up similar proposals and who would not pay any fee, and that really is simply what is aimed at.
It astonishes me that the Minister cannot offer any other test than the monetary test for judging the practicability or the seriousness of any proposal. I would have thought that one of the first things for a Commission of the kind to do would be to prepare a questionaire and see if the answers showed that the necessary attention had been paid to the proposition. If these answers seemed to warrant further inquiry, then that could be done without any paying down of £100, £50 or £10. The Minister has not even said that this is to be a deposit as proof of good faith and of serious intention. It is to be a sum which would be forfeited whether the tax is imposed or not. Whatever may be the result of the inquiry, this £100 will be forfeited. Of course, the effect of it will be that unless the people concerned have got promises beforehand or some kind of assurances or an excessive amount of confidence as to the tendency of mind of the Commission, they will say: "We are not going to risk £100 for an inquiry which is obviously going to be queered from the beginning." I say that if this examination is to be of a serious kind, having regard to the promotion of industrial activities in the country, that any proposal which is backed up by a show of evidence should be inquired into whether a payment is made or not. I think that the rejection of this section in the Bill will simply go to emphasise the point I have made, that it is to be a mere jockeying for personal interests.
Tá
- Earnán, Altún.
- Earnán, de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Sir James Craig.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Michael Egan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Níl
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- William Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
I move amendment 9:—
In sub-section (2), page 3, line 50, after the word "answer," to add the word "or," and immediately after line 50 to insert an additional paragraph as follows:—
"(c) does any other thing which would, if the Commission were a court of justice having power to commit for contempt of court, be contempt of such court."
This particular amendment is proposed because very controversial matters will be under consideration by the Commission, and there might be some temptation at times for newspapers to publish one side of a case and leave the other side unreported. That is a thing that, of course, could not happen in an ordinary law action, but it was represented that perhaps as matters of party concern would be before the Commission, it might happen. It is desired here to give the Commission a remedy against anybody who might use the proceedings before the Commission as a means of misrepresenting the facts by partial publication.
I do not know whether there is any precedent for this sort of power to a Commission of laymen. I have noticed, for instance, in connection with the Tribunal on Prices, that the power is to report to the High Court—it is the High Court that exercises the power of committal to prison. Is that the intention here?
Yes, there would be only power to report to the High Court in regard to this matter.
I move:—
In page 3, before Section 6, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Any member of the Commission may, if the Minister for Finance so directs, be paid such remuneration as the said Minister shall determine.
(2) The Minister for Finance may appoint such and so many persons as he shall consider necessary to be officers of the Commission, and such persons shall hold office upon such terms and be remunerated at such rates and in such manner as the said Minister shall direct.
This is to enable the salary of a Commissioner to be paid to any person, not a civil servant already in receipt of a salary, who might be appointed a member of the Commission, and also to enable officers of the Commission to be appointed and to be paid salaries.
I move:—
Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Every report made by the Commission shall be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of the Oireachtas."
This proposal is that the reports of the Commission shall be laid on the Table of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That is an obvious requirement. If publicity is to be given regarding the evidence, the report of the Commission. which presumably will be based upon the evidence, ought to be laid upon the Table of the Dáil and Seanad, and as there is no provision for that, I move the amendment.
The intention is that a report should be published and that would include, I should say, formal submission to the Oireachtas. It is also intended that the proceedings, so far as they can be published and do not affect the private affairs and credit of individual firms, should also be published. There may be certain cases where it would not be desirable, at any rate immediately, to lay a report before the two Houses. For instance, because of trade conditions or owing to questions of forestalling, or a variety of questions, it might not be desirable to have reports laid for any appreciable length of time before the taxing resolutions were introduced. Then you might have cases where, for some reason, it was felt desirable that the taxing resolution should be postponed till the ordinary Budget time. There is no reason, of course, why definite protective duties should not be imposed at any time of the year. On the other hand, there might be reasons for postponing the introduction of resolutions which would flow from a report, until a particular period of the year.
If this section were inserted it would lead people to expect that immediately the report had been issued, in whatever circumstances, it should be laid on the Table. I think that normally it certainly should be laid immediately. It is suggested, however, that there might be exceptional cases in which it would not be desirable to lay it immediately, if any action which was contemplated following a report was action which it was advisable to delay for, say, three or six months. A Commission of this sort, on whose reports Parliamentary action was liable to take place, would be a Commission whose reports ought to be laid on the Table. I am not strongly against the amendment, but I can conceive that there might be cases in which the existence of this provision in the Bill would lead to some misunderstanding or misapprehension.
I really cannot understand the Minister on this Bill. On almost every proposal he has made a speech which convinces me that he is not in favour of the Bill. This particular section leaves out one word, "forthwith," which might well have been inserted. I may say again that practically all the amendments I have put forward are based upon the precedent of the South African Tariff Board, which has been said to have been the precedent followed by the Ministry in drafting this Bill. This section is also contained in that particular South African Act, but it has the word "forthwith." I deliberately omitted the word "forthwith," leaving certain option with the Minister. One of the claims for favourable consideration put forward by the Minister on behalf of the Bill is that it is going to ensure publicity with regard to any and every inquiry, but publicity of the final result of the inquiry is not ensured. That is like asking a court to be public in respect to the evidence, but not to be public in respect to the judgment. "You may hear the evidence for and against the prisoner, but we are not going to make public the verdict of the jury or the sentence." I think it is essential that such a provision should be in the Bill. If the Commission is to take evidence in public, to inquire into the pros and cons of a case and report to the Minister, and the Minister may take action or refuse to take action, may impose a tariff or refuse to impose a tariff, it is surely essential that the House should know upon what report the Minister is acting or refusing to act, as the case may be.
To say that the report would be laid upon the Table, even if no such provision is inserted, leaves a question open, if the one important report that we would all like to read, is not laid upon the Table. We will not know whether a report has been presented to the Minister or not. He may put it in a pigeon hole and say: "We are not acting upon it for certain reasons, notwithstanding that the report is strongly in favour of a tariff on a particular article, we are not going to act upon it, but we will not report the fact to the Dáil." Surely it is essential that the reports made to the Commission shall be laid before the Dáil and Seanad. I have left a certain discretion as to the time which the Minister may choose to lay the report before the Houses. I am not sure that that is entirely wise, but I can see some point in the Minister's plea, and as I foresaw it, I dropped the word "forthwith." Certainly I will press for the reports to be laid upon the Table and leave the discretion as to the time to the Minister.
As I have said, I do not feel strongly with regard to this, and if it is clearly understood by the House that the amendment does give some discretion as to time to the Minister in cases of necessity, and as that will be on record, I am prepared to accept the amendment. Normally, I think the report would be laid upon the Table immediately, but I repeat in agreeing to accept the amendment, that cases might arise where delay of a considerable number of months—six months or so—might be necessary in the interests of an industry itself.
I move—
In page 3, line 59, after the word "Commission" to insert in brackets the words "(including the remuneration of the members and officers of the Commission)."
I move—
In paragraph 1, line 3, to delete the word "application" and substitute therefor the word "proposal."
Again this is an attempt to get the line of approach altered and that we may consider these matters from the point of view of the public interest as distinct from the point of view of the applicant. I need not argue the matter again.
I have already stated the reasons against. I think it is largely a verbal matter, but the Commission will be actually dealing with applications put forward by certain parties who have not the whole interests, but primary interests.
I move:—
In paragraph 2, line 8, after the word "labour" to insert the words "and rates of wages."
As it at present stands, the paragraph reads:—
"The cost, efficiency, and conditions of labour in Saorstát Eireann in the industry in respect of which the application is made as compared with such cost, efficiency, and conditions in other countries."
"Conditions of labour" do not include rates of wages, and I want to have inserted specifically these words, so that there can be no doubt about it that if comparative inquiries are to be made rates of wages as well as conditions of labour will be taken into account. As I have already pointed out, and Deputy Norton repeated it, the phrase, "rates of wages" is deliberately omitted from this, although the phrasing of the paragraph is taken out of the South African Schedule. Why "rates of wages" should be omitted I do not know, and I, therefore, desire to repair the omission and to ensure that in any inquiry of the kind rates of wages will be taken into account.
I think the matter is most probably covered under "conditions of labour," but I have no objection to adding the words suggested by Deputy Johnson, though I am not sure they really widen the scope of the paragraph.
I suppose if we are inserting the amendment we ought to delete the word "and" and make the paragraph read "the cost, efficiency, conditions of labour and rates of wages."
Agreed.
I move:—
"In paragraph 2, line 10, after the word ‘conditions' to insert the words ‘and rates of wages.'"
I suggest that you leave out the words "of wages."
The paragraph would then read: "The cost, efficiency, conditions of labour and rates of wages in Saorstát Eireann in the industry in respect of which the application is made as compared with such costs, efficiency, conditions and rates in other countries."
On the Report Stage I propose to put forward a further amendment here, to add "average or standard profits." I am just giving notice of that now.
The following amendments by Deputy Johnson were not moved:—
18. To delete paragraph 3 and substitute the words:—
"The effect which the proposals the subject of inquiry by the Commission if given effect to in whole or in part would be likely to have on the several matters mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Schedule."
19. To delete paragraph 4 and substitute the following:—
"The effect which the proposals the subject of inquiry by the Commission if given effect to in whole or in part would be likely to have on other trades and industries in Saorstát Eireann."
20. To delete paragraph 5 and substitute the following:—
"The effect which the proposals the subject of inquiry by the Commission if given effect to in whole or in part would be likely to have on the wholesale and retail prices of the goods produced by the industry."
21. To delete paragraph 6 and substitute the following:—
"The effect which the proposals the subject of inquiry by the Commission if given effect to in whole or in part would be likely to have upon the public revenues of Saorstát Eireann."
22. In paragraph 7, line 26, to delete the word "application" and substitute the word "proposal."
23. In paragraph 8, line 31, to delete the word "application" and substitute the word "proposal."
24. In paragraph 9, line 34, to delete the word "application" and substitute the word "proposal."
Motion made—"That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill."
I just suggested the question of adding the words "average or standard profits." It may avoid further discussion on the matter if I were to urge that profits are a matter for inquiry as well as conditions of labour and costs of labour. That phrase again has been omitted from the South African Schedule, and inasmuch as the other proposals in amendment 3, Section 2, have not been under discussion, it is necessary to raise this matter on the Schedule. I urge that it is an important matter that ought to have the consideration of the Committee as well as any of the other references, and it might be desirable to get from the Minister some view as to whether he would accept that, so as to avoid having to prepare an argument. The Schedule, as it stands, deals with a certain class of inquiry; it omits one very essential factor, that is the rate of profit. So long as you are going to refer all the questions to the Commission, I think it is important that we should refer that question to the Commission. If it is found that excessive profits are reasons why the cost of living, for instance, is affected, there should be no barrier against an inquiry into that question. I would put it to the Minister now that he should declare his willingness to insert in paragraph 2, or in one of the other paragraphs, this reference to average or standard profits which is the phrase in the South African Schedule.
I do not propose to agree to extending the inquiry to oblige the Commission to report on the average or standard profits. I think that we would be setting them practically an impossible task. If we had the Commission in operation for a number of years, or if we had a general tariff in operation for a number of years and the Commission were dealing with applications for modifications in that general tariff we might then well include and inquire into average or standard rates of profits and hope to have the Commission in a position to present a report in that matter. In the situation in which we stand, with protection just recently initiated with the Commission itself dealing, as it will in the main, with proposals for quite new tariffs, as it certainly will be doing for the next two or three years—for some time at any rate it will certainly be dealing with proposals for new tariffs—it seems to me that to make it obligatory for the Commission to report on average or standard rates of profits would be setting it a task which it could not accomplish. That inquiry would be not only proper and useful, but also necessary under other conditions. We propose this machinery to deal with existing conditions here, and I think it would be quite impossible for the Commission to arrive at anything in the way of standard rates of profits here. If, for instance, the boot tariff had been in operation for seven or eight years, and if we had a reasonable number of factories here owing their existence largely to the tariff and operating under its protection, and if any modification were proposed in the boot tariff, we might then ask the Commission to report on what was the average rate of profit. That would be an entirely different situation. In other conditions, I admit readily to Deputy Johnson, that might and should be a subject of report by the Commission, but in the circumstances that exist here I think you would be overburdening the Commission. You would be asking it to do something that it could not do effectively, that would involve much inquiry and would give us no results.