I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill is introduced with a view to setting up machinery to implement that portion of the Trade Agreement which deals with the question of protective duties and other import restrictions on goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom. The Bill proposes to give the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to request the Prices Commission to review the operation of the Customs duty upon any imported article, or to review the operation of any restriction upon the importation of any article. When such a request is made to the commission to undertake a review, the commission for the purposes of the Bill have the same powers as are vested in them under various named sections of the Control of Prices Act of 1937. The object of the Bill is, I think, clear, and further explanation does not appear to be called for. It is, of course, known to Deputies that the Prices Commission at the present time have power to make recommendations for the variation of Customs duties following a price investigation, but it is desirable, in view of the terms of the Trade Agreement, that we should have power to request them to undertake a review of the Customs duty even in such cases as those in which the price investigation would not be considered necessary.
In Committee on Finance. - Prices Commission (Extension of Functions) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.
The Minister could hardly expect us to get into violent opposition against the rehabilitation of the Tariff Commission. Perhaps the Minister also might consider giving the House and the country a general idea as to how matters will be worked, that is as to how these things are to come before the Prices Commission. I understand the Minister will put them before the Prices Commission but how will this be done and in what order? Priority, I understand, will lie with the British Government to put some matters before the Prices Commission. That arises out of the Agreement. On what lines will the Minister go in deciding priority as to the order in which matters are to be considered by the Prices Commission?
There is some obscurity in the public mind as to the exact functions of this Prices Commission. I have heard it suggested by some people on reading the terms of the Agreement with Great Britain that it might be inferred that in certain contingencies the Prices Commission would have the right to command the assent of the Oireachtas. I would like that point to be cleared up. The next point is, can the Prices Commission go beyond making a recommendation which Dáil Eireann will be free to accept or reject? Or has the Prices Commission power arising out of the Agreement which has been entered into for a period of three years of binding this Dáil by its findings? Does our Agreement imply that if the Prices Commission makes a finding that we, by virtue of our approval of the Agreement, will give that finding legislative effect? I think that point should be cleared up. I assume that the new situation will be something like this—that the Prices Commission can make a recommendation to us of what they think would be a reasonable level of tariff, to protect our industries and at the same time give British industrialists an opportunity of competing on reasonably fair terms with our industrialists, or whatever else the terms of the Agreement set out; or that it would be open to Dáil Eireann to say "We have examined the evidence brought before the Prices Commission; we have examined the reasons which led to its conclusions and we do not accept that reasoning. We think the tariff should be higher or lower than that recommended by the Prices Commission in order to fulfil the spirit and the letter of the Agreement into which we have entered with the British Government." I think the Minister should make that clear.
The next point with which I would like the Minister to deal would be, in view of the greater responsibilities that are going to be placed upon the Prices Commission, does the Minister intend giving the members of it a different form of tenure of office from that which they at present enjoy? As I understand it the present tenure of office of a member of the Prices Commission is like that of any other Civil Servant. He could be moved from that to another Department at a moment's notice. Does the Minister think that that will secure for him the independent-minded advice that is so necessary? Would it not be better to give the members of that Commission a quasi-judicial status and a security of tenure in their office of such a character as would render them quite independent of any pressure from any side, leaving them quite free to give their opinion without any apprehension as to their position or their emoluments being interfered with should their recommendations prove unpopular either in this House or in the country? Deputy O'Sullivan contented himself with saying that the Minister need not expect any violent opposition against the rehabilitation of the Tariff Commission. The public memory is notoriously short. Most people have forgotten that the Tariff Commission was set on foot by the Cosgrave Administration and that it was swept aside by the Minister for Industry and Commerce who said it was a useless and futile organ and that he found a joy and pleasure in abolishing it. Well, I am glad he has now taken the view that it was not such a useless body as he once thought it was. I am glad that he has now found it to be a valuable institution to which technical arguments can be referred for consideration, and recommendations sought which are based on the findings of very skilled technical persons who are not interested parties. The Tariff Commission is now and has been for some time a feature of the British Revenue Administration, a much more experienced revenue administration than ours could ordinarily hope to be. With all their experience from a very long tariff history they think it well to have a tariff commission which I think they call a Tariff Advisory Board. We are going to have one now and so far as I am concerned I welcome it. I think it would be a great help to the Minister and to the Oireachtas in assisting them to consider matters relating to the imposition of tariffs which may hereafter be brought before us.
There are many important matters arising out of the consideration of this measure. The most important is that which concerns the sovereignty of this Assembly, which seems to me to be challenged in this Bill before us. I always understood that this Assembly is the only Assembly which had power to enforce tariffs; that it was the Assembly which had powers to reduce tariffs or to annul them. Now, another body is being set up which is going to have power to deal with tariffs, to scale them down or to recommend higher tariffs and to take more than its proper share in imposing them. The Minister may tell us that if tariffs are scaled down the proposal has to go before this Parliament asking for authority for that scaling down, just as when he imposed tariffs he himself had to come before this Assembly to get sanction for that tariff. Now, if a tariff is to be scaled down the recommendations of the Prices Commission will have to come here for sanction. But let us suppose a situation arising where the annulment of a tariff is recommended, will that annulment have to come before this House? Will the Minister have in this country two authorities, one a law-making authority and another authority by resolution entitled to annul the laws made here? This is a matter to which a great many people in the country have given much thought—whether we are going to have a law-making authority in the State and another authority with power to annul these laws.
I would like to ask the Minister what is going to be the procedure of the Prices Commission. In Article 12 it is set out that the review provided for in Article 8 shall be held first of those classes of goods for which the Government of the United Kingdom asks for early consideration. I do not know whether they will ask consideration for a short list or a long list, but I assume that means priority for some particular list. The Prices Commission must exhaust that list before they get on to any other review of any other article. I should like the Minister in that connection to give us some idea as to how long that review would take. I do not want the Minister to say that he is not a prophet and cannot tell what the length of the list presented to the Prices Commission will be. What I mean is, will this take years to review? I mentioned earlier that the Prices Commission have had some articles under review for certainly over a year.
The next point which I wish to raise has reference to Article 8. I am assuming, and I hope the Minister will make it quite clear, that having exhausted the preferential list—I mean the preferential list as regards review that the United Kingdom manufacturers will present to the Prices Commission—I take it it will be presented to the Government and that the Minister will pass it on to the Prices Commission—they will then start to review certain other commodities, prices or restrictions. Is the Minister the only person who can initiate such a review before the Prices Commission? In other words, can a tariff be reviewed in any other way than, firstly, by getting on the preferential list for the United Kingdom, and, secondly, I presume, by the Minister being asked to consider certain other matters?
I want to be very clear on the next point which I wish to make, if the Minister can answer me. I take it that most of the procedure will resolve itself into a case between an English plaintiff and an Irish defendant before the Prices Commission. In other words, an English manufacturer well be looking for some sort of scaling down of the duties and the Irish manufacturer will be more or less contending against that. At any rate, the Prices Commission will be reviewing the situation. I want to know whether distributors or the general public would have any locus standi before such an inquiry concerning articles in which they are interested. I raise that point because the trading policies of certain manufacturers are very different from one another and certain nationals in this country might feel that they had a right to appear before the Prices Commission and make their views known to that commission. Personally, I think that it would be absurd if the Prices Commission could turn around and say: “You have no locus standi in this inquiry; it is a question between Irish and English manufacturers and nobody else can be heard.”
I hope the Minister will be able to clear up that point because I am afraid that in a number of instances the consumer has been thought far too little of, and there is a danger that he might take the revenge which is always open to the consumer, namely, that of doing without the article. I think that is one of the questions that the Minister is liable to underrate. If the public are smarting under a sense of injustice about some question of tariffs, I think that it should be open to Irish nationals to appear in their own country to make their case before the Prices Commission. I should like the Minister to clear up that point because, if he does not, I would like to introduce an amendment to widen the scope of the Bill so as to include those members of the public and distributors who might be interested. I would ask the Minister to reply to that point as fully as he can.
This Bill and that portion of the recent Agreement which it purports to implement proposes to permit representatives of British commercial concerns to come before the Prices Commission and, I presume, to call for the production of balance sheets, costings and other information of a confidential or semi-confidential nature in connection with the conduct of an Irish concern. What I want to know is: does this Bill, the Agreement, or the complementary legislation likely to be introduced in Great Britain and passed through the House of Commons compel the British commercial representative who will come before the Prices Commission also to produce similar information regarding the concern which he will be representing before our Prices Commission here? I think it would be rather unfair to permit a representative of a British commercial concern to come before our commission as a non-national, get all the confidential or semi-confidential information concerning the working of an Irish concern here, while the Irish concern on the other hand might not be allowed to get similar information from that non-national appearing before the commission regarding the concern which he was representing. I want to know what is the position either under the terms of the Bill or under that portion of the Agreement which this Bill proposes to implement in connection with that important aspect of the matter.
The Prices Commission, which is in existence and which was recently given extended powers by an Act passed by this House, has, in my opinion, a considerable amount of work to do in connection with the allegations of profiteering that have been going around the country regarding the prices of necessaries of life. In fact, I believe that I can turn up the records of a statement made in this House by the Minister that it was intended to have the members of the Prices Commission made full-time members for a stipulated period. If the same body is to do the additional work imposed upon them as the result of the Agreement, surely there is a case for the appointment of a full-time body for that particular purpose? I am in entire agreement with Deputy Dillon when he suggests that that body should be given judicial or quasi-judicial powers so that they would be free from any interference by the Government or by any section of the House in regard to the way in which they perform their duties.
I hope the Minister will reconsider the whole position of this Commission, if he has any intention of expecting it to do the work it is expected to do in regard to the internal affairs of this country, apart altogether from the additional work imposed upon it by the terms of this Bill, and that portion of the London Agreement which it proposes to implement.
When I was speaking on the Trade Agreement last week I referred to the Prices Commission as a free trade Commission. I spoke under a misapprehension, and I wish to withdraw that statement. Deputy Dillon in the course of his remarks said that the British Government had attached to the Revenue Department what he termed a Tariff Advisory Board. I think that ought to be the function of the Prices Commission, and that it should not have any absolute powers, either to impose tariffs or to reduce them, but simply to refer them to the Government with their advice.
Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Dillon referred to this Bill as a Bill to revive the Tariff Commission. In case any person might be led to misunderstand by that description what this Bill proposes to do, I think it desirable to emphasise the vast difference there is between the Tariff Commission established by the Tariff Commission Act of 1926 and the Prices Commission now in existence to which it is proposed to give new functions under this Bill. The Tariff Commission of 1926 was set up to consider applications for the imposition of tariffs and was provided with very elaborate terms of reference. These terms were so elaborate that they involved that every investigation carried out had to be protracted. It could be said not unfairly that it was a commission designed to delay, or if not to delay, perhaps to prevent the granting of protection to Irish industries. It certainly was worthy of some of the descriptions that were applied to it, and I think the development of industries in this country, and assisting them by means of protective duties, would have been completely impossible if the machinery of the Tariff Commission continued to operate. The Prices Commission will have no such function as that which was given to the Tariff Commission. It will have no function at all in relation to the imposition of tariffs. It will be asked to undertake a review of certain existing duties, with a view to discovering whether these duties could or should be modified, if effect is to be given to the principle set out in Article 8 of the Trade Agreement. In so far as the development of industries by means of tariffs is concerned, and in so far as the granting of applications for the imposition of new tariffs is concerned, the Prices Commission will have no function, and I think it is desirable that the fact should be made clear, that in the promotion of the Government policy of industrialisation the principle followed in the past will be followed in the future. Any person desiring to embark on a new industrial venture, and desiring the assistance of a tariff for that purpose, will apply to the Department of Industry and Commerce, where his application will be considered. If a favourable decision is taken of the application by the Government a tariff will be proposed as in the past by the Government, subject to ratification by the Dáil.
At no stage will the Prices Commission appear in the picture. But the Trade Agreement does provide that the British Government may request that such a tariff, after it is imposed, may be reviewed by the Prices Commission in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 8. I should say that the Prices Commission will not in any sense be a Tariff Advisory Board of the kind that exists in Great Britain. The Prices Commission will be asked to carry out investigations into the operation of particular tariffs and to make a recommendation concerning them, but it does not follow that every proposal for its reduction that may be made by any person in this country interested in the operation of any tariff need necessarily be referred to the Prices Commission. The Government is free. Any person in the position to which Deputy Dockrell referred who feels that a particular tariff is acting harshly against a particular interest can make representation to the Department of Industry and Commerce, and if it appears that the representation is well founded and that action should be taken along the line suggested, that action can be taken without reference to the Prices Commission.
That is so far as an Irish national is concerned?
Certainly. We have, however, agreed in the Trade Agreement to ask the Prices Commission to report on the operation of tariffs. We have agreed also that the British Government will have the right to propose that certain tariffs should be reviewed first. If they propose that we will ask the Prices Commission to give priority to such investigations as the British Government desire. That, I think, is convenient for us. If parties interested in having investigation into the operation of tariffs carried out here or if any manufacturer could apply direct, either to the Department of Industry and Commerce or to the Prices Commission, then, inevitably, there would be a large number of such applications coming in at once, whereas the arrangement involved in the Article of the Agreement means that the British Government will sift out applications in the first instance, and limit the amount of work to be done immediately by the Prices Commission. The Prices Commission will be instructed, of course, to carry out these investigations having regard to the terms of Article 8 of the Agreement. That Article is fairly definite in its character. It provides clearly that the principle enshrined in it need not apply in the case of industries which are not fully established—new industries recently established in this country which have not yet been able to overcome initial difficulties, training workers to a normal degree of efficiency, or getting the best results from equipment and organisation. They will be protected to whatever extent is considered necessary by the Government. It is only when industries have become fully established, when they have got over the initial difficulties, when the workers are fully trained, the equipment fully running, and the organisation working smoothly, that the principle enshrined in Article 8 will apply. That principle is that tariffs will be fixed at such a level as to give producers and manufacturers in the United Kingdom full opportunity of equal competition, while affording to Irish industries adequate protection on the basis of having regard to the relative cost of economical and efficient production. It is, of course, possible to say that, to some extent, we are paying, but there is no question of any invasion of the sovereignty to this House. This House is a sovereign Assembly, entitled at any time to take action in relation to tariffs or anything else, provided it has fully considered the matter and is aware of the consequences.
The House is at liberty to reject this Bill, just as it was at liberty to reject the Trade Agreement. The Trade Agreement does involve this: that if it is accepted by the House, then the Prices Commission will review the existing tariffs on the suggestion of the British Government or of the Irish Government, and if the Prices Commission recommends a reduction of those tariffs then those tariffs will be reduced. The Agreement is expressed to operate for three years. After that it will continue in operation, but at any stage after three years clearly the House can terminate the whole business by terminating the Agreement if it so wishes. Whether that would be a wise policy or not will depend, of course, upon the circumstances of the time.
And of the Government of the day.
And, to some extent, of the Government of the day. The Prices Commission, of course, will make recommendations and these recommendations will ultimately become effective through the medium of legislation. There is no suggestion that the recommendations of the Prices Commission will come automatically into effect. That body has not been given the power to make laws. It is being given power to make recommendations, and we agree to act upon its recommendations. Clearly, in relation to a Trade Agreement of this kind, any Article providing for a review by such a body as the Prices Commission would have no value at all unless there was agreement to act upon its recommendations.
But you have refused to act upon its recommendations in regard to home affairs.
I do not follow what the Deputy is driving at.
You previously refused to adopt the recommendations of the Tariff Commission concerning home affairs.
I am not aware of that, but, however, it could be so. It was the policy of our predecessors, when the old Tariff Commission was in being, to act automatically upon its recommendations. It did that as a matter of Government policy. In this particular case, something more than Government policy is involved in so far as there is an Agreement with an outside country, and that Agreement contains this undertaking: that where a review is carried out by the Prices Commission the recommendations of that commission will be given effect to.
The Minister has been speaking of a Tariff Commission and of a Prices Commission. Is there any confusion with regard to the application of these terms?
When I refer to the Tariff Commission I am referring to the old body that was set up under the Tariff Commission Act of 1926 which, although theoretically in existence, is inoperative. When I refer to the Prices Commission I am referring to the body that is now in existence, the body to which this Bill relates. I do not know what Deputies thought was possible in the way of a trade agreement with Great Britain. Some people have spoken on this matter as if they considered that a trade agreement negotiated between the two countries should result in the production of Article 1 of this document and in no other. In other words, that we should get free entry for all our produce into the British market and give nothing in return.
That was the position up to 1931.
Prior to 1931 Great Britain was a free trade country. Circumstances have changed fundamentally since then, and tariffs have been imposed by it in the exercise of its sovereign rights. These tariffs came into operation in May, 1932, and applied to the produce of every country in the world, including this one. The only countries which succeeded in securing exemption from these tariffs were those which made trade agreements with the United Kingdom involving the granting of concessions to United Kingdom producers and manufacturers.
I think many Deputies would regard it as not unreasonable on the part of the British Government to have suggested that in return for the free entry which they are proposing to give us immediately we should give an all-round reduction in our Customs duties, or some other immediate benefit to British producers and manufacturers. There are, of course, certain reductions of duties provided for in the Agreement, but they apply only to a limited number of articles. I think it is satisfactory that we had not in these trade negotiations to give an immediate reduction on all duties, but that we secured instead an arrangement which enables reductions to be carried out gradually after a full investigation by an impartial body set up by ourselves, and only to such extent as will still continue to give Irish producers and manufacturers adequate protection. In my opinion, it is a satisfactory arrangement and one upon which the Dáil can congratulate itself, because it means that the dual purpose which the negotiators in London had in mind in relation to a trade agreement, and to which I referred on Thursday last, has been achieved, namely, that we have secured immediately a free entry for all our agricultural and industrial products into the British market, and in return we have secured an arrangement which leaves us free to protect and develop our own industrial activities.
Which means wiping out the authority of this Dáil and leaving all to the Prices Commission.
That is a nonsensical argument. This Dáil is a sovereign body, and this Dáil can, if it wants to, reject this Agreement. It can reject this Bill, and is at perfect liberty to do so.
The Minister has stated distinctly that this Dáil will have to accept the recommendations of the Prices Commission. Surely that is an abrogation of the authority of this House.
The House, if it wishes, can reject this Bill, and as I have stated it can reject the Agreement. The House is at liberty to do that now, and now is the time for Deputies to say that they are not going to do it.
It is clear from what the Minister has said that under Article 8 the Dáil is being asked to hand over its authority to the Prices Commission. Would the Minister say if it was a condition precedent to the Agreement that that should be done?
Article 8 is an integral part of the Agreement, and it provides that a review will be made by the Prices Commission of existing protective duties and other import restrictions in accordance with the principle stated in that Article, and we undertake that the tariff on goods produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom will be adjusted, where necessary, to give effect to the recommendations of the Prices Commission. I am not asking the Deputies to vote for the Agreement. They are at perfect liberty to vote against it, but we are recommending it to the House. We think it is a good Agreement, and that what is provided for here is a good arrangement. We think that Article 8 is a reasonable price to pay for the considerable advantages which our producers and manufucturers are getting out of the Agreement. The Deputies are at liberty to vote against it. Do not think that we are bludgeoning or bullying you or even trying to induce you to vote for it. Vote against it now if you do not like it.
And you say that you are still a Fianna Fáil Minister after making that speech.
Certainly. I know what the Deputies are at. They are going to try and walk with their faces in two directions in the future as they have done in the past.
That is a joke.
They are either opposed to the Agreement or they are not. If they are opposed to it, then I take it they are out to vote against it. If they vote for it, as they did last week, they cannot go out afterwards and say that the Government let anybody down. The Government think that it is a good Agreement and is asking the House to vote for it. If the Deputies think that it is not a good Agreement, and vote for it, then there is a lack of moral courage there.
The Minister did not let the cat out of the bag last week.
I was as clear and specific last week as I am this evening. In any event, the Deputies have the chance of voting against the Bill now. I am not asking them to vote for it. They are at liberty to vote against it. I do not want them to vote for it under any misunderstanding. I repeat that it is a good Agreement; that this review by the Prices Commission, an impartial body set up by us, of our tariffs is something which we would do ourselves, in any event, when the industries protected by those tariffs had reached the stage of being fully developed. I think that if we set up a Prices Commission for the purpose of carrying out that review we should act on the recommendations of that commission. I stated not merely last week but long before those negotiations with Great Britain were entered into that many of the tariffs which we imposed to encourage the establishment of new industries had necessarily to be imposed at a high rate because of the initial difficulties which those new industries have; that we never contemplated that those high tariffs would remain indefinitely in force; that, on the contrary, we contemplated that when those industries had got over their initial difficulties, and had got working smoothly with trained workers and experienced directors, similar protection could be afforded to them by duties at a lower rate than were at first deemed to be necessary.
In other words you were spoon-feeding certain industries.
But apart from that aspect of the matter, I considered that in the negotiation of a trade agreement with Great Britain it was a reasonable provision that we should undertake that such a review would be carried out in return for the substantial benefits and concessions to our manufacturers and producers which the Agreement provided for. To talk of taking sovereignty out of the hands of this Dáil is obvious nonsense. The British Government on the other side are agreeing that for the duration of the Agreement no duties at all will be imposed upon our exports. They are purporting to take out of the hands of their Parliament the power to impose any duty upon our exports. Is that a limitation on their sovereignty? Is that an abandonment of any right of their Parliament? Of course it is not. Trade agreements of this kind are made every month of the year between some two countries in the world.
They never advocated self-sufficiency like you.
Every one of those agreements involves some limitation upon the freedom of action of both of the contracting parties. On a more suitable occasion I will deal with the problem of self-sufficiency, and the utter nonsense concerning it which members of the Labour Party have recently been talking. A question has been asked as to how the Prices Commission will act. The commission will, of course, establish its own procedure. It is entitled to do that under the Act appointing it. When it appears desirable for any reason that a review of an existing protective duty or import restriction should be carried out, the Minister for Industry and Commerce will formally request them to do so. I have used those words deliberately. It may appear desirable to the Minister that that review should be carried out, either because of purely local circumstances or because a request that such a review should be undertaken has been received from the British Government, but in any event the request goes from the Minister to the commission, and the commission establishes its own procedure. It will, of course, be only too willing to hear the evidence of any person or any representative body in a position to supply information that will help it in its investigation. I have mentioned already that any person within the country desiring that a customs duty should be reduced, and in a position to put forward arguments in favour of a reduction, will as in the past approach the Department of Industry and Commerce direct. The Department of Industry and Commerce in the first instance, the Government ultimately, will then have to make a decision—assuming that it accepts the representations which are made to it— whether to act at once, as it will be at complete liberty to do, or to refer the matter for review to the Prices Commission.
Deputy Dillon referred to the tenure of office of the commissioners. I think he misunderstands the position. Every member of the Prices Commission is appointed for a definite term. The Act requires that they should be appointed for a definite term, the only limitation imposed by the Act being that the term must not be longer than five years. Only one of the existing members of the commission is a civil servant. The other two members of the commission are not civil servants. It is true, of course, that the new block of work devolving upon the commission will upset to some extent its contemplated programme in connection with prices investigation. If it should appear to be necessary. I will introduce legislation here for the purpose of taking power to increase the number of persons on the commission. That may not be necessary, however. The effective work which will enable the commission to despatch its business expeditiously will be done by the staff of the commission, and, of course, the staff of the commission will be increased to whatever extent is necessary. The commission itself will, I think, be able to deal with its business quickly enough if the staff work is properly done before the commission has to deal with those matters, but if it should appear to be desirable that the commission should be increased I am prepared to promote the necessary amending Bill for that purpose. I certainly do not intend that the work of the Prices Commission as such should in any way suffer by reason of the new duties which are now being given to it. In the great majority of cases I should imagine that the review of existing customs duties or import restrictions will also involve a prices investigation, and that consequently the work which the commission does in one connection will be of value to it in the other also.
It is not so much a question of the number of persons on the commission as a question of whether they are going to be a full-time or a part-time body.
The commission will be such a body as to enable all the work coming to it to be expeditiously done. I cannot give the Deputy any more information than that. At the present time there is a full-time chairman and two part-time members. If it should become necessary to make it an entirely whole-time body, or to add to the number of whole-time members, then that will be done, but it is obviously undesirable to rush into decisions upon those matters until one has some experience of how things are going to work out. Deputy Davin raised some question about the possibility of confidential information relating to Éire industrialists being given to British manufacturers. I do not know where he got that idea. The Prices Commission will consider any representations that are made to them; they will summon witnesses and endeavour to procure all the information which will enable them to arrive at a sound conclusion. The Prices Commission is bound by law to keep that information strictly confidential, and there is no possibility of any information given to the Prices Commission by a witness in a confidential way being transmitted to anybody.
The point I want to make is this: The Prices Commission, I understand, has power to send for persons, papers and documents, and to command that all information which they reasonably require should be presented by firms inside this State. Will they have the same power to compel the representatives of British commercial concerns to produce similar information if it is necessary for the conduct of their particular task?
The Deputy misunderstands the position. If an association of British manufacturers comes before the Prices Commission in connection with the proposal that a particular tariff should be reduced, then the effect they are going to have upon the minds of the Prices Commissioners will depend upon the information they produce. If that information is not supplied, if for any reason their case sounds dubious to the commission, then it is undoubtedly going to be discounted or disregarded. Those people who appear before the Prices Commission will have to satisfy the commission that their case is a reasonable one before any action is likely to be taken upon it. I do not think the Deputy need have any fears on that ground. I can assure him that the Prices Commission will not be biased against Irish manufacturers——
Oh, naturally. I accept that absolutely.
——and, in fact, will not recommend the reduction of a duty unless it appears that the commission is bound to do so by its terms of reference.
But will the representatives of a British concern be in a position to get information placed before the members of the Prices Commission in regard to matters of a confidential or semi-confidential nature?
They will not.
In point of fact, will not the Prices Commission have a kind of dual function: (1) the reviewing of prices within Éire, which was its old function, and (2) its new function of reviewing tariffs either at the request of the British Government or British manufacturers applying through the Irish Government?
There are two functions, but, in fact, a precisely similar type of investigation would be required to discharge the one function as for the discharge of the other function, in the great majority of cases.
Except that the firm concerned would not have the information available to it in the one case that it would have in the other case?
No, but, clearly, a Prices Commission carrying out an investigation as to whether prices here are reasonable would have to institute a comparison between these prices here and in Great Britain or some other country, and obviously they would endeavour to get reliable information as to the circumstances in Great Britain and the prices operating there, as to whether prices are lower there than here and why they are lower, and would also have to inquire into the particular circumstances operating here that tended to enhance prices here more than in Great Britain. These and other such matters would be relevant.
We have heard about the manufacturers, but the Minister gives us no time to speak of associations of workers. He speaks of the efficiency of production as regards Irish manufacture. Deputy Dockrell is very much concerned about the consumer—a very interesting point—but not at all about the people who are going to be really affected by any advice given by this Prices Commission to the Government or as to how they might act upon the advice. Will the organised workers be given audience by the commission?
Certainly. It is for the Prices Commission to decide in any particular case whether an organisation or an individual, in fact, can give useful evidence, but there is no limitation upon the powers of the commission in the matter of receiving representations from organised workers.