Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1927

Vol. 20 No. 6

ORDUITHE AN LAE. ORDERS OF THE DAY. - VOTE 19—TARIFF COMMISSION.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,100 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta. 1928, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Choimisiún na nDleacht (Acht um Choimisiún na nDleacht, 1926).

That a sum not exceeding £1,100 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Tariff Commission (Tariff Commission Act, 1926).

Deputies will remember that the Tariff Commission commenced its work towards the latter end of the last financial year. Members of the Commission are civil servants in the Department of Finance, the Stationery Office, and in the Department of Lands and Agriculture. Their salaries are borne on the Votes of their own Departments. The Secretary to the Commission is a junior administrative officer in the Department of Finance, and receives an allowance as salary to the Tariff Commission, which allowance is borne on this Vote. A lump sum is provided for clerical assistance, in view of the possibility that increased work may render such assistance necessary. Provision is also inserted for the fees of expert advisers, who may be employed either as witnesses who would give evidence before the Commission or as a check on the evidence given by applicants, or they might be employed by the Commission to inspect and report on factories and plant. It is hoped, in cases where an application for a tariff is passed, that the evidence of the opponents will render the calling of experts less necessary, and that the Commission may be able to assess the evidence offered by both sides without the assistance of outsiders.

The travelling expenses of the Commissioners may include journeys where they think it necessary to make a personal inspection of the factories and plant of applicants or of other factories and plants. The incidental expenses include, as Deputies will see, the cost of advertising, and particularly of special reporting. The Commission decided that verbatim reports of the evidence given before it should be made, so that when it came to prepare its report the evidence given over intervals of perhaps three months or more would be readily available to them. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Tariff Commission Act provides for the payment of fees by applicants. A fee in any case is not to be less than £10 or more than £100. The fees are fixed by the Commission with the sanction of the Minister for Finance and regard is had to the length of time and expense likely to be involved in the consideration of the applications. In most cases a fee in the neighbourhood of the maximum has been charged, but in some cases a small fee. The fee in respect of the application for a tariff on margarine was £50, and in respect of the application for a tariff on rosaries it was £10. In the applications for tariffs on flour, woollens and worsteds and coach motor bodies, the fee fixed was £100 in each case.

The procedure that takes place in connection with an application for a tariff involves a number of stages. First there is an application to the Minister for Finance. Then there is consideration in the Department of Finance for instance of the representative character of the applicants, whether they do represent an industry or are entitled to a hearing. Then the application is either referred to the Commission or rejected, because it is so general in character or because the people making the application are not representative. I think I once got an application for a tariff on agricultural products. I rejected it because, first, it was too general, and, secondly, it was made by one Committee of Agriculture. Even had it been for a tariff on barley I would not regard one Committee of Agriculture as having the representative character necessary. When a case has been referred to the Commission the applicants are asked to submit detailed cases and lists of witnesses with their statements of evidence in writing. When that has been submitted the fee is fixed and sanctioned by the Minister and the applicants are informed of the amount. When they have duly paid the fee the Commission inserts notices in the "Iris Oifigiúil" and the daily Press announcing the application and inviting evidence from persons likely to be affected. There is inspection by the interested parties of the documents lodged by the applicants so that those opposing the tariff may be in a position to know what case is being made for it and may be able to counter it. Seven days before hearing a notice of the hearing is given. Then the case is heard, but, it may not be disposed of at one hearing. Sometimes, several hearings are necessary and opportunities must be given to opponents to make their case and perhaps to be re-heard. Then books and documents will often have to be submitted to an accountant for detailed examination. It may be necessary in some cases to get expert witnesses. In other cases it may be necessary for the Commission to see the plant and factory of the applicants and perhaps to see others. In the case of the proposal for a tariff on margarine not only were the premises of the applicants in Waterford visited but other factories in Liverpool and London were visited by the Tariff Commission.

It will not be possible for the reports to be made as quickly as perhaps some of us thought when the Commission was being set up, but there are certain cases in which all the evidence has been taken, and in which reports will very shortly be made. I think in a couple of cases the Commission is simply faced with the task now of drawing up its report, but for the information of Deputies who may be impatient and think that a case could be disposed of satisfactorily in a month or two, I might quote the length of time that was taken by the United States Tariff Commission in reporting on certain cases submitted to it. In the case of fabric cloths the time of consideration was two years, five months. Another very small item, paint brush handles, occupied three years and six months. Sewed straw hats took two years and five months. In the case of sugar the Tariff Commission in the United States was urged to hasten its consideration of the application and to deal with it as expeditiously as possible, and consideration took one year and four months. In another case of butter it took one year and seven months.

Were there any shorter periods?

These are as short periods as I have information of; in any case our Commission will not occupy such a length of time. The work of the Commission has not been held up at any stage by reason of the fact that the members of the Commission have other duties. When anything was ripe for consideration, the officers who were members of the Commission have been free to attend to it. Arrangements have been made in the offices to enable them to get free, but in some cases applicants had not anything like all the facts in ordered form for presentation to the Commission at the first hearing and adjournments had to be made to enable applicants to get out facts which should have been got out earlier. In other cases when the facts were put in it was not possible for the Commission to consider them. Where those facts related to statistics, there had to be examination by an accountant. The work is going on. In a couple of cases the Commission has had all the evidence it wants, and it is only faced with the problem of weighing and sifting the evidence and coming to its own conclusions. Of the applications that have been received, eleven have been referred to the Tariff Commission. The applications included margarine, coach and motor bodies, rosaries, flour, woollens and worsteds, down quilts. fish barrels, maize products, sole, insole. and harness leather and manufactured harness, cement, glass bottles, galvanised hollow ware, wheel-barrows, picture frames, bicycles, saw-mill products, and tin-ware. Glass bottles are the last which have been actually referred to the Commission. The others have not yet been dealt with in the Department of Finance.

Would the Minister explain what would be his position in respect to the application for a tariff supposing the report is presented to him, and is favourable, during the Recess?

My explanation would be that if I thought I could ensure privacy I would lock it up until the end of the Recess. In my opinion, when a tariff is going to be imposed as a result of the operations of the Tariff Commission, forestalling cannot be prevented. Some people will have come to certain conclusions as a result of the proceedings before the Commission and you may have forestalling. On the other hand, greater facilities for forestalling should not be made available. I think myself as soon as the Report of the Tariff Commission is available a resolution imposing a tariff should be passed here. That would give us a considerable time for the consideration of it and if the Dáil did not finally decide to impose the tariff, anybody who had paid it in the meantime would have their money repaid. If the Dáil did decide to impose it a large amount of forestalling would be prevented.

Is the effect of that to lead one to the conclusion that the Commission should be asked not to report until after the Recess?

I asked a question here a couple of months ago whether workers formerly engaged in the manufacture of goods in this country, who now find themselves deprived of their means of livelihood owing to their former employers becoming agents for foreign-manufactured goods, could state their case before the Tariff Commission. I got a reply to the effect that they were debarred from stating their case. owing to the terms of reference. It is a matter which I think the Minister would be wise in reconsidering. Irish firms who formerly gave good employment now have machinery standing idle because they find it is cheaper, owing to the facilities granted for importing foreign goods made in a cheap market, to act as agents for the class of goods which they formerly manufactured at home. I will give one instance. There is a well-known firm in Dublin city which formerly employed a large number of paper-bag makers. Their machinery is now standing idle and they are importing paper-bags in tons for distribution here.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I think the Deputy is advocating something which would require legislation. The Deputy will have to confine himself to the Tariff Commission.

I wish to ask the Minister whether something could not be done to alter the terms of reference of the Commission so as to permit workers who are now unemployed, as a result of the dumping of foreign goods, to present their case to the Commission. Alternatively the Minister might add to the powers of the Commission to enable them to hear the workers' side of the case as well as the employers'. In some cases the employers may find that they are getting a handsome profit by acting as agents for foreign-manufactured goods, but at the same time they are keeping idle skilled workers who were formerly employed by them producing the same class of goods. I think the Minister could do something in that case. I am satisfied that the Tariff Commission is paying attention to all the complaints put before it, but employers who should put suggestions before them to promote employment will not do so because they are satisfied with the profit they are getting on imported goods, while workers formerly engaged in the trade are left idle. I think the Minister should consider the matter so as to devise some means of allowing the employees to present their case before the Commission.

That would mean a very fundamental alteration of the Tariff Commission Act, and I could not undertake to make such a change at the present time. I do not think the workers alone would be able to make a case or to supply facts in relation to an industry that the Commission would require, but if the employers could be induced to make application there is no doubt the workers would be entitled to be heard when the application was being made.

I wonder would the Minister think it indiscreet to give me any information about the investigation into the flour-milling industry or say when it is likely that the Tariff Commission will report in regard to this investigation?

I could not give the Deputy any information.

I wish to urge upon the Minister that something should be done to expedite the imposition of a tariff on coach and motor bodies, if the Tariff Commission decide that such a tariff should be imposed. The position at the moment is that the country is being flooded with buses made in England and other countries while practically all the coach builders in this country are idle. A very large number of men who formerly found employment in this industry are now out of employment. I am afraid that if the Tariff Commission decide on imposing a tariff the demand for buses in this country will be largely supplied before the tariff comes into operation. I would ask the Minister to do something to expedite matters in case the Tariff Commission decide in favour of a tariff on imported coach and motor bodies.

As far as that matter is concerned, the applicants, although they lodged their case and took the preliminary steps, did not proceed to pay the fees when they were informed of the amount. Until they pay the fees no further steps can be taken.

Am I to understand that the Ministry referred the claim to the Commission?

And it was after the reference to the Commission that they declined to pay the fee?

Yes. When an application is being referred to the Commission the applicants are asked to submit a detailed case. That enables the Commission to fix a fee. It is only after they have some idea of the extent of the inquiry that the Commission can fix a fee, which they do with the sanction of the Minister. Notification is then sent to the applicant that on the fee being paid arrangements will be made for a hearing.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share