I move that the Dáil agree with the first amendment inserted by the Seanad. I explained in the Seanad that originally the Bill contained a corresponding word, the word "revocation," and that that word had been struck out of the draft because we did not wish misapprehensions and misunderstandings to arise. I do not think that the Bill will suffer at all by the insertion of the word "abolition." The Bill provides that the application either for the imposition, modification, or renewal, or, as it now stands, "abolition or renewal" shall be made by persons who are substantially representative of those engaged in, or who propose to engage in, the industry. So that an application for abolition can only come really from people who are engaged in the industry in respect of which the tariff exists. I think it is somewhat unlikely that applications for abolition will come forward. There may be applications for modification which may be in the nature of abolition of part of the duty or the duty on some particular class of goods, but for complete abolition of the tariff, I think it is not likely that any application will come forward. If people engaged in the industry do think an application for abolition ought to be made, there is no reason why they should not be able to make it. The amendment would have to be resisted if it enabled persons other than those engaged in the industry to make application for abolition, because the effect of the application and the hearing would be to discourage the development of industry and the investment of money in it. As the Bill stands I contend that this amendment will do no harm.
SHOP HOURS (DRAPERY TRADES, DUBLIN AND DISTRICTS) BILL, 1926. - TARIFF COMMISSION BILL, 1926—FROM THE SEANAD.
I am afraid the Minister has overlooked one possible outcome of this proposal, and, in view of the argument he has put forward in favour of accepting the change, I think if he realises the risks being run, he will hardly press his motion to accept this change. I have in mind, for instance, firms, say, engaged in the chocolate or in the boot trade who have hitherto been, and are now, supplying the greater portion of these classes of commodities consumed in this country. Let us take the chocolate trade. The bulk of that trade in Great Britain is in the hands of three firms. They may suffer in some little degree from the tariffs. So they have to overcome it by some method. They are persons engaged in the industry in Great Britain, and they may propose to engage in production in the Saorstát. They put forward as a counter proposition that this duty should be abolished in so far as it affects chocolates. They could argue before that Commission that the cost to the community of the tariffs might be excessive as compared with the advantage they would be able to give if the duty were abolished. From the point of view of the consumer and from the point of view of the British trader or manufacturer who wants to supply Irish consumers I have no doubt they could make quite a good case. At least they could produce a claim under this section for the abolition, and I do not see how it could be repelled, if they justified their statement that they were proposing to engage in production, provided the plea for abolition did succeed. The same thing might well happen in regard to, say, the boot trade. That has been given as an illustration of one of the good effects of the tariffs in so far as the development of the boot industry is concerned. But I think it has been stated here that perhaps ten per cent., or it may be five per cent., perhaps, of the total consumption of boots is yet and will, for some considerable time, be the proportion of Irish manufacture. One, two, three or half-a-dozen firms may propose to engage in the production of such boots in the Saorstát under certain conditions. But being persons who may propose to engage in production in the Saorstát they put forward proposals and they would say that it is far better for the public that you should abolish this tariff because they would say: "We can supply you more advantageously from our own British factories." They would put forward that case. They would claim to be able to put forward a case of that kind and under the proposed amendment it would be very difficult to refute it. If that is possible under the amendment then what becomes of the contention that the Minister has put forward with great force that it is not fair to legitimate enterprise that they should under the promise of a tariff, enter upon production when within two or three years it may be said: "Well, here you have a section in your Bill which allows the proposal for the abolition to be seriously argued before your Commission."
We have been told frequently that that is undesirable, that there should be some security, at least for a few years for those manufacturers who have entered on production. Under this proposal it will be possible for people who are not yet manufacturing, but who would propose in certain circumstances to manufacture, to argue that it is more advantageous to have the tariff abolished than to start manufacturing in the Free State. The insertion of this word will destroy much of the case that has been made in favour of the sub-section, and, particularly, the statement made by the Minister that, inasmuch as the proposal is confined to those who are engaged in manufacturing, they, therefore, will not be desirous of seeking the abolition. I point, as against that, to the section which says that persons proposing to engage in manufacture may make such application. If they may make application for abolition you cut the ground under the feet of those already engaged in industry, and who have risked their capital investments on the promise of the Minister that a proposal for abolition will not be considered for eight or ten years. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the point that it materially weakens that section, as it will allow big competitors under the cover of promises—perhaps legitimate intentions—to undertake manufacture here, and under that promise to put forward a counter-proposition to the Commission to abolish the tariff altogether.
I certainly would not regard such an application as bona fide, and I would think that that would be one of the cases in which the Minister ought to exercise his discretion by not submitting the matter to the Commission at all. I think that you must assume that you will deal only with bona fide applications of people who intend to conduct the manufacture of their goods here, and who desire the tariff only because they would sustain losses, in the first instance, which would be too great to enable them to carry on if they did not get the tariff. The particular ill results that Deputy Johnson fears could arise without the word “abolition.” If an application, such as he describes, were to be entertained it would be possible to ask for a modification of the tariff. If a firm, on those conditions, could make an application at all—for instance, a modification of the boot tariff to a farthing a pair——
"Modification" simply means a small variation.
If not a modification to that extent, say, to the extent of twopence a pair, and in that case you get the same ill results. I think the only way that the hypothetical case which Deputy Johnson has put forward could be met would be by recognising that it was not a bona fide application, and by turning it down on those grounds.
I propose:—
"That Amendment No. 2 be not agreed to, and that the following amendment be inserted in lieu thereof:—To insert after paragraph 8 of the Schedule a new paragraph as follows:—
"To what extent, if at all, the competition from imported goods to which the industry in respect of which the application is made is exposed is unfair by reason of currency depreciation or the grant of subsidies or bounties in the country in which such goods are manufactured."
The new words which I propose are to the same effect as those inserted by the Seanad, but they fit in with the Bill. The words of the Seanad are: "To what extent, if any, the imported goods in respect of which an application is made..." Applications are not to be made in respect of imported goods but in respect of industries. It is necessary that the new paragraph inserted in the Schedule by the Seanad should be re-drafted to bring it into conformity with the wording of the rest of the Bill.
I move:—
"In the Title, page 2, line 9, after the word ‘modification,' the word ‘abolition' inserted."
This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1.