Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 25 Feb 1927

Vol. 18 No. 10

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 69.—TARIFF COMMISSION.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar Chéad agus Seasca Punt chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun tuarastail agus costaisí Coimisiún na nDleacht (Acht um Choimisiún na nDleacht, 1926).

That a sum not exceeding One Hundred and Sixty Pounds be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1927, for the salaries and expenses of the Tariff Commission (Tariff Commission Act, 1926).

Deputies will see that the amount of work here charged is comparatively a very small sum. It does not, of course, actually represent the cost of the Tariff Commission, because while the three Commissioners have given a certain amount of time to the work performed by the Commission and will probably in the future give a greater amount of time to that work, their salaries are borne, as is customary, on the votes of the Department to which they belong and to which, of course, they give the greater part of their time.

The Secretary of the Commission is seconded from the Department of Finance and, as is customary, his salary is borne on the vote of the Department to which he belongs and from which he has been seconded. It might occur that a little later he would be definitely appointed, in a more or less permanent way, to be Secretary of the Tariff Commission and would be removed from the Department of Finance and his salary would no longer appear in the vote of the Department.

As, I think, was explained on another occasion to Deputies, there was a certain delay in setting up the Commission, and even when the Commission had been set up certain technical and unexpected difficulties arose. For instance, a certain difficulty arose in making a regulation for the charging of fees, and it was necessary to get an Order made under the Adaptation of Enactments Act in regard to it. The Commission is now pursuing its work. The Secretary of the Commission has been devoting himself to the work of the Commission since the 20th January last. Up to the 20th January, while he had been doing an amount of Tariff Commission work, he had also been doing the work on which he was previously engaged in the Department of Finance.

Only one public sitting of the Commission has taken place, and one of the things that emerged at that public sitting was that the people who made the application, although they had had it before the Government for a considerable time, had not occupied any of the time in making a real good preparation of their case so that it could be speedily disposed of. On many matters they were not able to answer— many matters on which they might have anticipated questions. As a consequence of that the hearing had to be adjourned.

There is no doubt that the volume of work of the Commission will steadily increase. The amount of time occupied, and perhaps the amount of staff required, will steadily increase because, before one application has been disposed of—and, with adjournments, no application can be disposed of at one, or perhaps two, sittings— other applications will come in and will be occupying the time of the Commission. Applications which come in first would be still undisposed of, while others would be occupying the time of the Commission. I think it is rather like the Dáil which, if it has only one Bill before it, must adjourn at frequent intervals. If there are certain Bills which can be taken on different days it can work continuously. The Commission will only be able to work continuously when it has a number of applications before it. If there is an adjournment of one application for the purpose of getting additional evidence or for some particular matter, another can be taken up. It will be some little time before the Commission gets into full swing.

This is the first estimate the House has been asked to agree to for the purpose of enabling the Tariff Commission to carry out its functions. We had a reply from the Minister to a question put by Deputy Johnson some short time ago, in which he indicated the number of applications already made to the Commission. We heard just now that only one of the applications made some considerable time ago had, so far, been heard by the Commission.

If this Commission is meant to be a real live body with authority to give careful consideration even to the small number of applications that have already been sent in, I think there will have to be more time given to the work of the Tariff Commission, and that will mean that we will be called upon at a later date to provide more money to enable the work to be conducted in a proper way.

I took the view when the Tariff Commission Bill was brought in that the members of this Commission would be detached from whatever work they might be doing as civil servants and put on this special work, this very important work, for a year or two. That need not mean that the very prominent civil servants now composing the Commission should be detached permanently from whatever work they were previously carrying on.

The Minister talks about the attitude of certain people who have gone before the Commission and stressed the point that they did not appear to have gone before that body with their case carefully and fully prepared. So far as I understand the working of Commissions, it has been customary for the Secretary, after consultation with the Commissioners, to prepare a questionnaire. If the proper questionnaire form were sent out to whatever firm or firms were concerned they would, and should, have replied to the questions which the Commissioners had in their minds, that is, if the questions were put in a clear or straightforward way. I am not sure whether a questionnaire was sent out in this case. If there had been it would overcome the difficulty mentioned by the Minister.

Are the people of this country to understand that the Tariff Commission is to be the only machinery, the only medium, through which tariffs can be imposed? I think there is a genuine reason for asking that question, and I hope the Minister will make the matter clear.

In the last Budget introduced by the Minister he stated quite frankly that no more tariffs would be imposed until after the general election. He subsequently qualified that statement. Next we had a proposal for the establishment of a Tariff Commission, which gives everybody to understand that nothing would be or could be done in the shape of imposing tariffs, so far as the future policy of the Government is concerned, unless the applications were put before the Tariff Commission and evidence given in support of it. We came then to a very startling statement made by the Minister about five weeks ago in his constituency. Whether under pressure or otherwise he said: "There are certainly going to be more tariffs."

Has the Minister by that speech in Monaghan prejudged the decisions of the Tariff Commission? Fifteen applications, we were told, were put before the Tariff Commission. Are we to understand that the Minister has actually in his possession the full facts and all the evidence that would enable him to prejudge or prejudice—some people say it would be prejudicing— the decision of the Commissioners on any particular application? Let us know here and now, when money is being asked to enable it to carry on this work, if this is to be a real body: this body which is to receive applications, hear evidence and eventually to make recommendations or a report to the Government as a result of which the Government will or will not agree to impose tariffs. There is an organised body of small farmers in my constituency which has set up an organisation for the purpose of creating an agitation for tariffs to assist agriculture. At a recent meeting of that body what I believe was a genuine difference of opinion was shown as to whether it should prepare a case to put before the Tariff Commission. It was decided by a majority not to do so because of statements that were made, such, for instance, as the one made by the Minister for Finance in Monaghan. I think it is up to the Minister, who is credited by every Deputy in the House with being very blunt and straightforward to say now whether or not tariffs will be imposed in the future, independent of the work of the Tariff Commission. The House, I think, is entitled to that information in view of the conflicting statements that have been made between the date of the introduction of the last Budget and the recent speech by the Minister himself.

I do not want any remarks which I make now to be taken as in any sense acquiescing in the existence of the Tariff Commission. In view of the statement made by the Minister for Finance on the Budget of 1925, I think this Commission should not be in existence. Its existence is a direct proof of the value of promises or pledges made by Ministers in the House. The Commission, of course, does exist, and there is no use in ignoring that fact. With regard to the putting of cases before the Commission, there are certain points which I would like to have cleared up by the Minister. According to the Act, representations for the imposition, abolition or modification of tariffs must be made by persons substantially interested, by persons engaged in, or proposing to engage in, the production in Saorstát Eireann of goods of any particular class or description. With regard to abolition, I want to know if that section of the Act means that only persons who are substantially representative of people engaged in a particular industry are entitled to apply for the abolition of a tariff in that particular industry, or if it is possible for representatives of another industry, having no connection whatever with that particular one, to do so? Take, for instance, the case of an association of even small farmers, of whom Deputy Davin is very fond of speaking. Apparently the Deputy thinks that large farmers have no right to exist at all.

Deputy Davin did not say that.

The Deputy always talks about small farmers.

They are the only class of farmers we represent.

You mean claim to represent. I want to know if a body, representing small and large farmers, decided that a particular tariff was injurious to their industry, would they be entitled to go before the Tariff Commission and apply for its abolition, or in the case of an application for a tariff for that industry could they attend and oppose it? Judging by the methods of the working of the Tariff Commission, I am inclined to think that a term originated in this House by the Minister applies to it—that it is merely eye wash. The Minister is well aware that it is not in the interests of this State that there should be additional tariffs. It seems to me that the Tariff Commission is not facing up to the question of dealing with tariffs at all. That is the impression that one gains from reading the report of the sitting the Commission held, and doubtless between one delay and another this House will not be asked to deal with any tariffs between this and the General Election. That, to all intents and purposes, will be the case. Another thing that is pretty evident from the report of that one sitting of the Commission is this, that those who have not yet got tariffs are devoting their attention to proving their case to the people of the country through means of propaganda rather than in the manner of making a real genuine case before the Tariff Commission. When the margarine people made an application before the Tariff Commission they were told, in effect, that they had not half prepared their case, and that as far as the ordinary person could judge they had made a very bad case for the imposition of a tariff in that particular industry. With regard to the fees charged in connection with the making of an application, I understand that these are based, to a certain extent, on the trouble and expense the Commission is put to in dealing with each particular case. I think that is a wrong basis on which to fix fees. It might mean that in a particular case prolonged inquiry would be involved and that those making the application were not financially in a position to deposit a large amount at the beginning. I would like to know if a deposit also applies to cases where a claim is made for the abolition of a tariff? Does it apply in all cases, whether for abolition or imposition? These are some points on which I would like to have information from the Minister.

If Deputy Johnson is very anxious to speak on this, perhaps we could adjourn, but I would regard it as a great favour if we could finish this estimate to-day.

I feel it is necessary to deal with this matter in some fullness. It is an important question. I think that the whole policy in regard to it requires some ventilation. I do not know that it will take very long, but I do not think the Minister would have time to reply before 4 o'clock.

There is just this about the matter, that I would like to get the volume of estimates out with as little delay as possible. If there was any other way of discussing the matter I would be prepared to agree.

I will postpone what I have to say. I have no doubt that if the Minister will facilitate us we can find an opportunity to discuss the questions raised on this Vote.

I will do that.

The matter could be raised on the Bill.

There are other questions to be raised on the Bill as well.

In view of the Deputy facilitating me I will say one or two words in reply to Deputy Davin. When I said that there would, certainly, be more tariffs, I said it because I am positive that, in my opinion, there will be some applications out of the many that have come forward, which will so commend themselves to the Tariff Commission that they will lead to a report which will justify the Government in going on with tariffs. The intention is not to impose any additional protective tariffs, except following a report in that sense from the Tariff Commission. With reference to the two points raised by Deputy Heffernan, only persons engaged in the industry can make application to the Commission. People opposing the tariff before the Commission can, of course, give evidence.

With regard to the abolition?

No, they must be interested in the industry to which the tariff applies.

In view of the fact that new tariffs will possibly be imposed is not the Tariff Commission only a laughable farce?

Could the Minister say whether there is any possibility of having the highly-qualified Civil Servants who compose the Commission detached for a permanent period, or sufficiently long to hear the cases sent in as expeditiously as possible?

We will do that if necessary, as soon as the work advances. It is just like the Dáil having no work when there are several Bills in the first stage. If the work develops the Civil Servants will be allowed sufficient time to devote to it.

Vote put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Resolutions reported and agreed to.
Top
Share