It is, I think, important that we should realise in regard to this Bill that it is, as has been said by Deputy Donegan, tailormade, meaning that it conforms with the provisions of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain and also with the GATT regulations on dumping. I rather felt that Deputy Donegan referred to it in that way in a somewhat derisory manner. I want to point out that the fact that there are international regulations in regard to dumping is of very great advantage to us. Undoubtedly, if there were no such regulations, we could bring in machinery here which would enable us to deal very strictly and stringently with dumping.
What people tend to forget, when talking about the subject of dumping, is that this is a two-edged weapon, that we have in this country many firms engaged in the export market—I hope that in the years to come we will have many more and that those at present engaged in the export market will be in it on an even bigger scale—and that being so, we have to remember that what we want to apply to goods coming in here can be applied to our goods going into other countries. If this were a question of a free-for-all, with every country providing its own anti-dumping legislation, our exporters would probably find it impossible to get into many export markets because the anti-dumping legislation of those countries would, in fact, be used as protection.
There seems to me to be a tendency on the part of some people in this country to think of our anti-dumping measures as measures which would enable us to keep on protection, even though we have agreed to get rid of it. That is not so. If we want to see our exporters getting a fair deal in other countries, we have to conform with the international regulations in this regard, which means that there is some order in the anti-dumping legislation of the various countries with which we deal. As I said, this Bill conforms with those regulations.
Mention has been made of the fact that there has been delay in bringing in this Bill. That is quite true, but, as I explained to the House on a previous occasion, the Bill was, in fact, drafted and ready to be brought before the House but new regulations were made by GATT, which were, I may say, very advantageous to us. Amongst other things, they enabled us to introduce a provision here for retro-active duties which, to my mind is a vitally important part of any anti-dumping legislation. However, because of this, the Bill had to be recast and redrafted, and for that reason there has been some delay in bringing it forward. I think everyone would agree that the delay was worth while, in the sense that the Bill now provides much more effective machinery for dealing with dumping than we could otherwise have had. I should also like to point out that the necessity for this Bill, as of now, is not perhaps terribly great because we still have a great deal of machinery available to us under which we can deal with dumping in respect of many commodities. That machinery is being dismantled and, as I said in my opening statement, it is not terribly flexible. It was designed to deal with a different situation.
In general, I think the House is in favour of the Bill and would like to see it enacted. On Committee Stage, we will be able to go into more detail with regard to some of the points which I think will be of concern to Deputies, but, at the same time, some points were raised in the debate to which I should refer now. There was a suggestion that this Bill is evidence of the fact that we are now, for economic reasons, in a defensive situation and that what we are trying to do is to hold back the tide with regard to our industries. That is not true in general, because I am glad to say many of our Irish industries are now adopting a most aggressive attitude in the export market, and being very successful. In particular, it is not true in regard to this Bill. I want to emphasise again that this Bill is not a method of providing protection for industry. It is a method of dealing with dumping, and dumping, as I have already explained in my introductory statement, is internationally defined and, provided it comes within that definition, we can deal with it.
I want to make it clear that the fact that imported goods are produced very efficiently and are thereby cheaper than those produced in Ireland is not of itself evidence of dumping and this Bill will have no effect in dealing with imports of that nature. I would remind the House again that to constitute dumping, goods must be sold here at a price which is lower than the fair price of the same goods on the home market. In addition, there must be evidence of damage to our industry or prospective industry.
Deputy Corish asked about a particular case he has taken up with me in regard to fertilisers. The particular one to which he refers relates to imports from Britain. This is being dealt with at the moment but the evidence of dumping in that case is not nearly so clear-cut as Deputy Corish seems to think. Indeed, fairly strong arguments have been adduced to show that there was no dumping in that case. This illustrates one of the difficulties one comes up against in dealing with dumping and trying to determine whether or not there is dumping.
I would point out that under the machinery provided in this Bill, the situation referred to by Deputy Corish could be dealt with more effectively, because if there is prima facie evidence of dumping it is possible under the terms of this Bill to impose provisional duties and thereby protect the industry while the investigation goes on to establish whether there is more than prima facie evidence of dumping.
A point was also raised about goods being imported for re-export, but I want to point out that, if they are being re-exported, they cannot injure home industry and, therefore, there cannot be any question of dumping in that case. Reference was made to the situation in the Dunlop company in Cork. When I was speaking in the House before in this regard, I endeavoured to make clear what the position was, and I want to make it clear again. There was no question of dumping involved in the difficulties which arose some time ago in Dunlops. In fact, some if not all of the imported tyres which were creating the difficulty were dearer than those sold by Dunlops. It is obvious therefore that no question of dumping was involved. I think we should endeavour to make this very clear and not confuse our people on what is involved in this instance in Dunlops, and in the other instances which were referred to earlier in regard to the footwear industry where difficulties arose. There is no question of dumping and the situation arising there will not be dealt with under this Bill at all if a similar situation should arise when we have this machinery in being. Deputy Booth referred to the price at which goods are sold being uneconomic. That is not of itself evidence of dumping. The situation is that the definition as set out in the Bill must be strictly adhered to in defining what dumping is.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Donegan about the inportation of fertiliser, I am not sure where the fertiliser is coming from, but we did impose duties which were, in effect, anti-dumping duties on fertilisers coming from West Germany. Deputy Donegan said he had imported some in the course of his business; he must have got them from somewhere other than West Germany because these anti-dumping duties are in existence.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Tully, I should like to make it clear that, as far as we are concerned, we have no objection to dumped goods coming in here provided that those goods do not do any damage to an existing industry or to an industry which might be set up if such dumping did not exist.
On the question raised by Deputy Corish, there is no analogy whatever between the commission proposed in this Bill and the commission referred to in the Private Members' Bill which was being discussed earlier. I do not think I need elaborate on this. A little thought will show that there is no analogy whatever between the two.
Deputy Corish also asked whether the commission would be part-time or full-time. It is envisaged that the commission will be part-time. If the level of work were, of course, such as to demand a full-time commission, then this would be provided; but it is not envisaged that this will happen in the early stages at any rate.
Deputy Corish was concerned about the ability of the commission to act speedily. This is, I think, of concern to most people in relation to anti-dumping legislation. One must remember, however, that the commission must act on the basis of the evidence available. It cannot just make quick decisions, risking the making of unfair decisions, merely to protect our industries. This is where the retroactive duties and the provisional duties, and even the levies which may be imposed, dating back for 90 days, will show their real value. These can be imposed to deal with goods in respect of which there is prima facie evidence of dumping and the commission can then act quasi-judicially in investigating the evidence available. If the commission were to act in any other way we would, I think, immediately run into very great difficulties internationally because it could be alleged that we were using this machinery merely for protection purposes and not against dumping. We have a scheme which enables us, I believe, to protect industries which are in immediate danger from dumping and, at the same time, enables us to act quasi-judicially in investigating the evidence available in regard to dumping.
Deputy Tully referred to the difficulties which can arise in determining what is the fair price on the home market in respect of any particular goods. With regard to some commodities there is a special difficulty. Deputy Tully expressed a certain fear. He instanced a case in which a firm has a large production and there is some slight recession in the market; in order to keep going and to keep employees employed the firm might sell goods even below cost. This is, of course, the danger. Deputy Tully envisaged this happening on the home market. It seems to me that that danger is very remote. It could happen, but it is very remote because any firm which would do this would, when the market picked up again, find it difficult to raise prices and would, therefore, be very foolish to sell on the home market at dumped prices. They would put themselves out of business and experience of business shows that such an exercise is very unusual indeed.
With regard to a statement by Deputy Booth, he may, I think, have given to the Bill greater credit than it merits. He said he felt that the procedure involved was simple and that it was merely a question of making a complaint to the commission and the matter would be dealt with. It is not quite that simple. There must be prima facie evidence of dumping before we can impose temporarily provisional duties or levies but, subject to that, we can act expeditiously.
There were some questions raised about quotas. This Bill does not authorise the Minister to introduce quotas. It provides for duties which may be imposed but which may not be greater than the margin dumping as defined. There is provision in our Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain for the imposition of quotas in certain circumstances. This was the provision we utilised to deal with the Dunlop case. Apart from that, quotas have to go. They are contrary to the provisions of GATT. We are, however, retaining some of them.
I have dealt with the main points raised. I repeat that, while this Bill is necessary now, it will be even more necessary in the future as the different types of machinery we have in regard to our protective system comes to be dismantled. The Bill goes as far as it is possible to go in order to ensure that our industries are protected against dumping and, at the same time, ensure that our exporters get a fair deal on foreign markets. While there are some provisions I should like to see in the Bill in order to make absolutely certain there would be no danger to our industries from dumping, nevertheless, realising the dangers of contraaction against our exports in foreign markets, I believe the Bill goes just as far as we can reasonably expect it to go. One cannot say with certainty at this stage how the machinery will operate. I believe it will operate effectively and efficiently. It may be that in the course of its operation we will discover some loopholes. If there are such we shall make every endeavour to block them. The House will, I feel, be satisfied that, in enacting this measure, we are doing a worthwhile job, namely, standing by industry in general, both management and workers.
