Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 8

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION OF TARIFF COMMISSION.

Debate resumed on the following motion and amendment:—

"That the Dáil is of opinion that the Tariff Commission, as at present constituted, is unsuitable for dealing expeditiously with applications received for the imposition of tariffs and should be replaced by a Commission, consisting of five members who should have a knowledge of agricultural and industrial conditions (of whom one should be a qualified accountant), appointed by the Executive Council with the approval of the Dáil, and to hold office for a stated period;

That the Commission, thus constituted, should have power to investigate the conditions existing in any industry in regard to its need for protection against foreign competition and should make recommendations to the Executive Council as to how the benefits derived from the measure of protection afforded to any trade can be shared by the consumers.

That for the purposes of its inquiries the Commission should be empowered to enforce the attendances of witnesses and to examine them on oath;

That the Commission report to the Executive Council, which shall publish such reports within three months of their presentation if so requested by the Commission.—Deputy Lemass.

Amendment:—

To delete all words after the word "opinion" in the first line and add the words:—"that the Tariff Commission Act should be amended so as to provide that the members consituting the Commission shall devote their whole time to the work of the Commission;

That the Commission constituted after amendment of the Act should have power (in addition to the powers given by the existing Act):—

(1) on the submission of proposals by or through the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Lands and Agriculture or on its own initiative, to investigate the position of any industry and the possibilities of fostering such industry or protecting it against foreign competition;

(2) to report on the probable effect of methods of assisting and protecting any industry by methods other than customs duties;

(3) to report on the safeguards required or desirable to ensure a satisfactory standard of working conditions for employees in any industry to which assistance or protection may be given."—Deputy Tomás O Conaill.

Mr. LAW

The Dáil may or may not remember that when we were here last Friday I was engaged in considering, purely for the purposes of illustration, and showing the extreme complexity of the questions which any Tariff Commission has to consider, the matter of a possible tariff on barrels. The word appeared to have evoked a certain hilarity in some quarters of the House which I am sorry to say was quenched when I revealed the fact that the barrels in question were destined to contain nothing more exciting than pickled herrings. I will not pursue that matter any further but to say that it illustrates what it was intended to illustrate, a point which seemed to be questioned in the Fianna Fáil Benches, that as a member of the Tariff Commission said that it was an extremely difficult thing to know where one industry ends and another begins. In this particular case of a tariff on barrels it would be obviously of no great public advantage to give employment, let us say, to 20 coopers if, at the same time, you were to disemploy an equal or a greater number of people employed in the fish curing industry or in the fisheries themselves. I want just now to address a few words to the Dáil. And I want to ask Deputies what is left of the arguments of the Opposition? Let me state briefly the successive stages through which the arguments seem to have passed. Before this motion was introduced in the earlier days of the session, and I think also in the last session, we had a series of arguments directed to show that in order to make this country something like a paradise all that was necessary was that we should put on, apparently without any preliminary inquiry, the highest possible tax upon everything that can possibly be produced in this country and, if necessary, an embargo on all foreign goods. The farmer and the manufacturer were to rely on the home market. If the home market was unable to satisfy them, then we were told that we should all have to reduce our standard of living, though how that is to be done so far as the poorer people in this country are concerned I do not know, unless, indeed, they were to give up using sugar, tea and tobacco. I suppose nobody suggests that the standard of housing in this country generally was too high. Heaven knows that the standard of housing needs to be raised, not lowered.

In the motion by Deputy Lemass we have advanced a stage at least in reasonableness. The demand that tariffs all round be imposed without inquiry is, at least by implication, dropped. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Opposition equally with the Government, is committed in favour of selective tariffs. The only question between us therefore when the debate began was what sort of a Tariff Commission is best qualified to do the work that we all desire it should do? When the Tariff Commission was set up I was not a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. Nevertheless, from what I read and heard, I was convinced that the course chosen by the Government was the right one, but it was better in the interests of the country that we should appoint upon such a body not interested parties but impartial civil servants. I have not heard anything in the course of this debate which causes me to modify that opinion. There remains, however, of course, the personnel of the Commission. It remained a very fair question for debate whether the particular persons chosen were the best qualified for this work and I listened with great attention and great interest to the case put forward by the Opposition to see whether they could show that in fact there had been either any misconduct or any want of impartiality or want of attention shown by the persons who actually constitute the Tariff Commission. The issue has now been, as it seems to me, still further narrowed. The Minister for Finance has gone in very great detail into the case and he has shown us quite conclusively that so far as his inquiries have gone there has not been, up to the present, any delay attributable to the Commission itself. Whatever delays had been occasioned have been delays caused not by the Commission but by the parties who were applying for the tariffs. Therefore, we come down to this that possibly in the future, the Commission being admittedly composed of men who have other very important duties to perform may find itself unable to give sufficient time to this class of work; and that if that happens we have the specific pledge of the Government that they will take all the necessary steps either to relieve the present Commissioners of other duties, or else to replace them by other persons, so that the work may be properly performed. I submit further that the Opposition having failed specifically to substantiate the charge of delay on the part of the Commission itself as respects its actions up to the present time; and the Government on the other hand having undertaken that if they found in the future that if such delays do occur or seem likely to occur owing to the actual composition of the tribunal, they will take the proper steps to meet that new situation; and I submit that that being so the motion made by Deputy Lemass fails and ought to be rejected by the Chamber.

Just in conclusion, I wish to say, if I may do so, respectfully to both sections of the Opposition, that they might very well cease barking up this particular tree which, as far as I can see, is singularly barren of any promise of fruit, and, if they may desire, as I am quite certain they do desire most sincerely, to diminish unemployment and lessen emigration, they will find much more useful work to be done by joining in co-operation with that great policy of agricultural improvement which has been set on foot by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. That, personally, I think, would be one of the most useful things in this way—pressing for a great national scheme of housing such as would employ a great number of men for a series of years, free from the fear —which I think lies at the root of nearly all economic trouble and serious disputes between masters and men— the fear of unemployment, the fear of being thrown out of work—if they will co-operate in a scheme of that sort, I believe they would be doing an immense amount immediately for the economic improvement of the country and they would enable us to see in our own lives an end to those hideous conditions in our tenement houses in the great cities of Ireland which disgrace us in the twentieth century of the Christian era.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

We are debating here an amendment moved by Deputy T. O'Connell to a motion set down by Deputy Lemass, and the speeches made so far pointed to the similarities that are said to occur between these two matters that are before the House—the motion and the amendment. So far there has been very little attention paid, and very little said, in this House as to what essential difference there is between the motion and the amendment, and the actual powers which the Tariff Commission has at the moment. We were appealed to by Deputies from the Fianna Fáil Benches not to treat this matter as a party one. One speaker expressed his belief that this matter had, so far, not been treated on party lines. The debate has been initiated on the motion of Deputy Lemass, one of whose opening comments was that this Tariff Commission was never meant as a serious business, and that this Tariff Commission was only set up to fool the people and to give the impression that the Executive Council was serious in the matter of tariffs. And that is the introduction of a debate that we are asked to consider in a non-party spirit, a very useful preamble to a non-party debate. We are told by Deputy Lemass and by Deputy O'Connell that the reason why there should be a change in the composition of the Tariff Commission is on the ground of delay. One might say the debate has hinged almost altogether on the ground of delay. Deputy Lemass, though he did bring in other matters—the reluctance of manufacturers to come before the Commission—based that reluctance on the restrictions imposed on the Commission by the terms of the Act. Having talked about restrictions, he demonstrated no restrictions. He went off on the main subject of delay. Deputy O'Connell spoke of the fact that only two resolutions of a positive nature had proceeded from the Commission, and he said that this warranted a change in the Tariff Commission.

Although the Minister for Finance devoted a considerable portion of his speech showing that the delay was almost entirely due to the applicants themselves, Deputy Anthony rose immediately and said that, notwithstanding all that we heard from the Minister, there was a case for a change. I want the thirteen applications that have been made considered with regard to the question of delay. I want Deputies to examine what the Minister for Finance said with regard to delay when this subject was last under discussion. After that I want Deputies to say in what respect the Commissioners have been deficient. I want Deputies to point to any considerable delay caused owing to the fact that the Commissioners were otherwise engaged, that they were not whole-time, that they were not ready to give immediate attention when it was required to any application placed before them. The same state of things is going to continue for the future. We are going to have applications made to the Tariff Commission; we are going to have reluctant manufactures coming before the Commission, and we will find that they have not their cases as well made out as they imagine they have. We are going to have them asking for longer periods for consideration—for greater time to consider a matter which vitally affects them. And they have every reason for delay, and the Commissioners have every reason to grant delay in a matter which so vitally affects the country.

We are going to have claims made hereafter simply because applicants have thought fit not to make applications for a tariff until a later period, not to make payments of fees until a late period. They asked for delay, and now we are asked the reason for the holding up of the operations of the Commission. We are going to have Deputy Lemass finding a clear-cut conclusion on the fact that there have been only two applications brought to decision by the Commissioners. Deputy O'Connell joins in saying that that is proof positive that there is something wrong with the Tariff Commission, and Deputy Anthony says that notwithstanding all that the Minister said, there is a case made for a change. Can anyone point to any single application which has been delayed longer by the Commissioners than it has been delayed by the applicants themselves? In saying that, I make no criticism of the applicants or the manufactures who come forward seeking a tariff on particular items. It is quite right that this matter should be carefully considered and that the manufacturers should insist on having everything thoroughly and completely discussed. Let us hear of the occasions of delay caused by the fact that the Commissioners were not able to attend at a moment when the applicants desired them to attend.

The Minister for Finance went through the cases one by one on Friday. His words are on record; his statement is now before the Deputies. I am not saying there was not delay—slight delay—on occasions. Can it be said there was any greater delay in the matter of a decision caused by the Tariff Commissioners than by the applicants themselves? That is the point we have to consider—the point of considerable delay. Deputy O'Connell says that the Commission proceeded to examine in a leisurely fashion. The leisure of the Commission had nothing to do with it; it was the leisure of the applicants who wanted to amend their applications at times, to bring forward further evidence and to produce rebutting evidence against facts urged in opposition to their applications. The records of the Commission were laid before the House on Friday and the dates of the different sittings are all given. In those records will be found the times when applications were made, when payments were made, the time of the first sitting and the times when adjournments were given at the request of the applicants, together with how many applications are at present held up by reason of the fact that important witnesses are not available and adjournments have been asked for to enable those witnesses to attend.

I want a case made, not on the vague talk about there being delay and, consequently, we must have a new Commission. There have been 13 applications so far referred to them, on two of which there was a positive decision; the others are at hearing. Let us have a definite case made with regard to any one or two of these—that there has been a delay and that that delay has been caused owing to the fact that the Tariff Commission are not wholly occupied on the applications made to them. Manufacturers, we are told, are reluctant to come before the Commission because it is generally thought that it is a waste of time to make an application to a Commission constituted as it is at present. In so far as that contention has to deal with the constitution of the Commission being part time and, consequently, that the argument is founded on delay, it is met by what I have previously said. In so far as it deals with what Deputy Lemass vaguely calls restrictions imposed by the terms of the Act on the Commissioners, what are these restrictions? Let them be demonstrated and not spoken of.

Mr. DAVIN

Will the Minister deal with sub-section (1) of Deputy O'Connell's amendment? Will the Minister make a case against that?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is with regard to the submission of proposals by or through the Minister?

Mr. DAVIN

Yes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I will. Now let me deal with the position of the Tariff Commission as at present constituted, with the restrictions referred to. What are the restrictions? Deputy Davin points to one—I presume that is the meaning of the intervention—that they can only discuss things brought before them by interested parties. The case Deputy Lemass was making was that all manufacturers would not come before the Tariff Commission on account of the restrictions imposed on the Commission. That is not an argument against the Commission not being able to do things on its own initiative. The Deputy has in mind manufacturers who want to come, but who will not come because of some fancied restrictions either in regard to powers or something else of the Commission. Where are the restrictions on the Commission? I am taking positive matters spoken of by Deputies on the motion and the amendment, which are supposed to indicate by implication a deficiency in the Tariff Commission.

Let me examine both the motion and the amendment from that point of view. "The Tariff Commission is unsuitable for dealing expeditiously with applications." That is the time point again. On that I refer to what I said, that there are eleven outstanding applications at the moment. The case made in regard to delay caused in the hearing of any of these applications is that owing to the fact that the Tariff Commission, as at present constituted, is unsuitable to deal with them, and that, in so far as it is unsuitable, it can be remedied by making the Commissioners whole-time officials. The Tariff Commission, being unsuitable, should be replaced by a Commission consisting of five members, who should have a knowledge of "agricultural and industrial conditions, of whom one should be a qualified accountant." It has been generally agreed in the House that the difference between five and three is inconsiderable. I think even Deputy Lemass himself said that appointing five instead of three could never be really a matter for serious consideration if it was found that the three appointed could not cover the scope of the various applications that came before them. I want the contention proved, if it is going to be decided, that the question of five as opposed to three is really an important matter. As regards the point that one should be a qualified accountant, in so far as accountants are required for the work of the Commission, they are feed and brought in to help the Commission. On many applications they have been brought in to help the Commission, and no defect arises from the fact that one of the Commissioners in person is not a qualified accountant.

As a matter of fact, I believe that at least two of the Commissioners could do as good work, except in minute detail, in the matter of accountancy as any qualified accountant. The motion states that the Commissioners should have a knowledge of agricultural and industrial conditions. The three officials appointed on the Tariff Commission are the nominees of the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is it by implication suggested that the people who have been appointed are not aware of the agricultural and industrial conditions of the country? We have heard it said that they are civil servants living sheltered lives and away from the ordinary things that affect the people of this country. There is just one point that one must attend to in considering this. As regards the three officials who have been appointed, can it be said of two of them that they have lived sheltered lives for any great period up to the present, or that they are not acquainted with conditions as ordinarily lived in Ireland? Can it be said of the two men who are the nominees of the Minister for Finance and of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that they in fact have led sheltered lives—even if the term "sheltered life" can be applied to civil servants—and know nothing of what is going on in the country or of the hardships that people have to contend with? These are to be appointed by the Executive Council with the approval of the Dáil.

Those who were in the Dáil when the matter of the Tariff Commission was brought forward will recollect that an amendment was moved to have the three people on the Tariff Commission nominated by the Executive Council. I forget what was the reason upon which the amendment was opposed, but I think it was very much the same reason that is now put forward, that by having this an executive act of the whole Government there would be what has been called uniformity of policy in regard to their appointment. There is one answer to that point, and it is this: that all the Ministers of the Government at the moment are members of the Executive Council. The Tariff Commissioners have to be the nominees of three Ministers. Is it likely that any of the Ministers would make an appointment of an important type like this or act in a way that would be contrary to what has been called the policy of the Executive Council?

With regard to that particular matter, if that contention be seriously put forward, then a much better answer has been given by Deputy Law in answer to Deputy Derrig. You are not appointing people and saying to them on this matter: "Remember you are for tariffs, or you are against tariffs, and when any question of the application of a tariff for a particular industry comes forward you are to vote for unless there is an overwhelming majority against, and you are to vote against unless there is an overwhelming majority for." There is no question of policy in the appointment of the people who are to serve on the Tariff Commission. There is, however, the question of the appointment of three impartial people who are not going to report for or against tariffs but are going to pass decisions upon certain matters put to them in the Schedule to the Tariff Commission Act. Once that report goes before the Executive Council, whether the Executive Council decides favourably or unfavourably upon it, or whether it decides to postpone a decision on it, the report becomes a public document and has to be put before this House eventually. On that document the members of the Dáil have to pass judgment and give a decision. Therefore, there is no question of policy with regard to the appointment of these three individuals. In so far as there is any question of responsibility the Ministers concerned may put up recommendations, but responsibility for their acceptance has to be shared by the entire Executive Council. Therefore, in so far as that point has been made, it is worthless.

The motion states that the members are to be appointed by the Executive Council with the approval of the Dáil, and to hold office for a stated period. We are told that if a term is put to the appointment that then the people appointed will be free from political pressure and will be more or less in a judicial capacity and free to act as though they were, properly speaking, in a judicial capacity. In order to do away with any good that might flow from an appointment for a stated period, the appointments are to be made with the approval of the Dáil. The approval of the Dáil, as we have been recently told in regard to another motion, is only given here on party lines, and that approval can never be looked for in an impartial way. What the motion means, according to the interpretation of the Party who put it forward, is that the Tariff Commission Act should be so amended as to provide that the Tariff Commissioners should be nominated subject to political pressure and should really, in fact, be enthusiasts for a particular line—that is, enthusiasts for tariffs. That is what the motion means when one comes down to an examination of what Deputy Lemass had in his mind.

The members of the Commission are to be appointed with the approval of the Dáil. What that means is this: that we are to have names canvassed and put up for submission to the Dáil. On a question such as this, you would have a debate on the names put forward. Each man's history would be gone into, as well as his possible views on this, that and every possible application for a tariff that is likely to come forward. His whole history would be raked up, and the question would be debated as to how far he would be likely to be subjected to pressure on this, that and the other type of application. After a wrangle of that sort had gone on in regard to the individuals whose names had come before the House, if you succeeded in getting five people to take on the duty of Tariff Commissioner, would you be likely to get unprejudiced reports hereafter from these Commissioners?

The motion also suggested that the Commission "should have power to investigate the conditions existing in any industry in regard to its need for protection against foreign competition, and should make recommendations to the Executive Council as to how the benefits derived from the measure of protection afforded to any trade can be shared by the consumers." There are two points in this: "The Commissioners should have power to investigate the conditions existing in any industry." That, I presume, is the same as is meant by Deputy O'Connell's amendment, part 1, that the Commission may "on its own initiative investigate the position of any industry." Deputy O'Connell's amendment adds to that: "or on the suggestion or proposal put forward by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the Minister for Agriculture." With regard to these two Ministers, the Minister for Finance has repeated that that was a proposition that had been considered. Why no progress has been made with regard to that proposition is because neither of the two Ministers has felt the need for having these powers. There have not been a sufficient number of applications coming to their notice to go before the Tariff Commission as at present constituted, and until a sufficient number comes it is quite undesirable to give either of the two Ministers power to bring cases before the Tariff Commission. What would be the result? If there were sufficient applications which could not come before the Tariff Commission, by reason of the fact that they were not from people sufficiently representative under the Act to bring them, the Departments might feel there was a sufficient number of cases of that type, then there would be some reason for making this case, which would be considered when the time came, but at the moment there is no demand and no reason for a change. What is the result? Surely the result is obvious to everyone? Day by day there would be questions in the House to the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to whether the needs of such industries for protection are to be brought forward, and if not why not? No one in this country, no group of manufactures would take the responsibility for putting forward proposals if they could put such pressure on Ministers in the Dáil as to make them father proposals, where they could, so to speak, be given a trial run, and if the Commissioners turned down the application the manufactures could come in on the second line, saying that the case had not been properly presented, and should go before the Tariff Commission themselves. Would there be ever any application put forward by interested manufacturers if there was a way of approach to the Tariff Commission through any Minister in this House, and if that Minister could be moved to bring forward the proposal simply by the kind of pressure that can be put on, whether by way of a Parliamentary question or a debate in this House?

I did at one time consider asking the Executive Council for leave to have the Tariff Commission Act amended so as to enable my own Department to put forward proposals with regard to a change, by way of increasing or decreasing tariffs already put on, because I thought at one time it was necessary that the Department should have that power in order to see that the tariff policy was given a proper chance. The tariff policy has shown that certain tariffs would be given a proper chance, and if the Department now saw that certain additions or certain subtractions should be made to those originally put on, without the examination that the Tariff Commission can now give, then the Department should have that power. Again, I do not see that that power is necessary. On any occasion on which some changes are required on any tariff put on during the last three or four years it has always been possible to get the parties interested—the manufacturers—to make application themselves. There is a further point in regard to applications made either by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Agriculture. What is going to happen eventually? Let us conceive a case in which the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Industry and Commerce say with regard to a particular industry non-existent in the country that it has a good chance if only tariff could be established. The Minister goes before the Tariff Commission. In the first place he is not likely to make a good case, as there is no one there to be examined as to actual costs. All Departments can put up would be estimates from other countries, showing how factories of a particular type are working. These estimates could be queried and there is no one to give guarantees as there is in the case of a manufacturer already in the country, with regard to industries already existing, that costs will be kept to a certain point, or that conditions will be kept to a certain standard. In the end, if the Minister succeeds in getting the application favourably reported on by the Tariff Commission, what is the next step? If he reveals that publicly one knows what will follow. Immediately there will be a rush to dump into the country the particular article that is hereafter to be protected. The Minister's application having been heard secretly by the Commission and having got a favourable report, is it the Minister's position that he should have to hawk that tariff round the country—outside this country possibly—looking for someone to come in and found a factory on the basis that if a factory be established hereafter then certain conditions will be attached to it. If that sort of policy is to be adopted, and if that is the line of approach people consider necessary, let us wait until the case is made that the power is necessary, that it is essential that it be placed in the hands of the two Ministers before insisting on it.

There is the further point that the Tariff Commission should be allowed to examine proposals on its own initiative. That may be a power necessary to give a Tariff Commission hereafter-Is it proposed, when there are eleven applications with regard to existing industries in the country pending before the Tariff Commission, that we should complicate their task, and lengthen the time they will take in their consideration by saying to them: "In addition to the eleven concrete proposals now pending before you, you are to take a roving commission and examine into anything, into industries generally, have power to call certain people before you in any business, bring them forward, examine their books, subject them to an inquisition," and, at the end, say to these unwilling people: "You are going to have a tariff." On Friday, the Minister for Finance spoke of the inadequacy of that, even if it is considered an equitable type of procedure. Does one believe, in cases where manufacturers are unwilling to go before the Commission and give evidence, that one is going to get co-operation from them on forced appearance, necessary to get the very intimate and technical details that one must get before a tariff on anything can be properly considered? We are told, as a side-line from this, that certain people will not appear before the Tariff Commission as at present constituted, because it is not alone protection they want, but prohibition of imports, plus some further guarantee with regard to foreign capital coming in. Any application of that sort can be made now to the Tariff Commission. An application which really ends in prohibition can be made. An application which is to have attached to it a further application with regard to the prohibition of foreign capital can be made to the Tariff Commission. If the applicants desire to have their case heard secretly, so that the matter of seeking prohibition or some impediment to be placed on the influx of foreign capital, that can be heard, at the Commissioners' discretion, in camera. The Commission may report that a tariff amounting to prohibition should be imposed. It is for the Dáil afterwards to say whether that does in fact amount to prohibition. Prohibition can be enforced by the will of this House. The very wide terms of the last paragraph of the Schedule are:

Such other economic, industrial and administrative aspects of the application as appear to the Commission to be relevant to the determination of the merits and demerits of the application.

If there is any decision given by the Tariff Commission with regard to the necessity of preventing foreign capital coming in that would crush out the people at present engaged in a particular industry, that report can be received under the terms of the present Act, and it is for this House to consider that report when it appears. We are asked to have the Tariff Commission allowed to make recommendations: "as to how the benefits derived from the measure of protection afforded to any trade can be shared by the consumers." Obviously that is a matter for the Dáil. The Tariff Commissioners are expected to report a certain number of things; one of the things is the effect which the granting in whole or in part of the concessions asked for in the application would be likely to have on consumers of the goods produced by the industry in respect of which the application is made, and the cost of living.

The Tariff Commissioners must report on that, and it is not for them to report on safeguards. They may advise as to safeguards and machinery, but it is for this House, when it has heard the Tariff Commission's report on the item in the Schedule, to make up its mind whether or not there is machinery by which the benefits may be passed on to the consumer.

It is for it to insist on that machinery being established and on seeing that the benefit is passed on to the consumer in cases where it seems to be desirable that it should be passed on. We are asked to insist that for the purposes of this inquiry the Commission should be empowered to enforce the attendances of witnesses and to examine them on oath. That power is already there. Finally, we are told that the Commission shall report to the Executive Council, which shall publish such reports within three months of their presentation, if so requested by the Commission. The Chairman of the Commission said, and in so saying he was only following out a statement that has been made in this House, namely, that once their report is made it has to become, some time afterwards, a public document. We are asked to put a term on that period of three months. Supposing the Executive Council, as a result of accepting a report of the Commission, considers that the machinery would be difficult to set up and that it would take a longer time than three months to set it up, are we going to have the report of the Commission revealed and allow dumping, about which Deputies on the opposite benches talk so much?

There is to be a safeguard of three months if the Commission so require. Why leave it to the Commission? Deputies, by the ordinary process of putting down a question, can ascertain whether a report has been submitted, whether a report has been accepted, and, if a long period seems to have elapsed between the presentation of a report to the Executive Council and the submission of a report from the Executive to the House, there is the ordinary means of questioning in order to ascertain the reason of the delay, and Deputies can bring forward a motion to insist on the report being submitted. The amendment has, I think, many points of similarity with the motion. It wants to provide that the members of the Commission shall devote their whole time to the work.

On that point specific assurances have been given that if a case can be made out that as the Commissioners hold only part-time appointments, they are holding up the consideration of applications, the Minister for Finance is ready to consider the appointment of whole-time members or, at any rate, he has approached the point of making it definite that the Tariff Commission work is the first and primary occupation of the people at present on it, and that if they cannot give their first time to the most important part of their work, they will have to be changed for others who can do so. Until, however, a case is made that these people, being only part-time Commissioners, are holding up the work of the Commission, it is better to leave them as they are particularly when you consider this further fact. If there is not on the Tariff Commission a representative of the Ministry of Finance, a representative of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, and a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, every report of the Commission when received will have to be considered by people who occupy the principal posts in those Ministries, because these are the Departments that would ordinarily be called on to report upon documents of the sort received from outside bodies.

Instead of making up time by insisting that these people shall give their whole time to that duty you are only interposing a second examination of the matter. First, there will be consideration by the Tariff Commission, and, secondly, by the principal officials of the Ministries concerned, and, after that, by the Executive Council, so that, that proposal is not going to speed up the question of tariff reform in this country. A further point is that the Commission, on the submission of proposals by or to the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, or on its own initiative, should have power to investigate the position of an industry. With that I have dealt. The second point is one about which Deputy Cooper had a certain grievence, namely, that the Tariff Commission should be asked to report upon the probable effect of methods of assisting and protecting any industry by methods other than customs duties.

That is not, I submit, a matter for the Tariff Commission. If there are industries which require help by any means, other than customs duties, such, for instance, as the imposition of prohibition, it is not a matter for the Tariff Commission, and to add that duty to it is to give it a task that is unending and which would definitely stop, for a considerable length of time, its consideration of a simpler problem, the imposition of a tariff. It is right and proper that there should be somebody ready to report on other methods of helping industry other than the imposition of customs duties. There is one branch in my own Department which has that duty, and it is for it to consider any proposals that come before it and make recommendations. It is for the Executive Council to consider such recommendations with regard to any method of protecting industry other than customs duties, such, for instance, as bounties. The subsidy with regard to sugar beet, for instance, was dealt with in a way different to that in regard to tariffs.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Does the Department to which the Minister refers wait for proposals to be submitted to it?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No; the Department did not wait for proposals to be submitted in regard to the sugar beet industry, nor in regard to the kelp industry, about which inquiries are being made. Its function is to make inquiries regarding industries that could be started in particular localities, to see what help can be given for particular industries in any locality, and to find out what is hindering the growth of industry in any locality. If there is anything required in regard to the second paragraph of the amendment it is really an enlargement of that Department of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and not an enlargement of the number or powers of the Tariff Commission. Let us leave the Commission to deal with its own proper work.

Do not have the idea of tariffs complicated and further postponed by telling the Commissioners that they are to inquire into all industries, existing and potential, and to make inquiries and bring forward recommendations as to how such industries can be fostered. We are told, finally, in the amendment that the Commission should be asked to report on the safeguards required or desirable to ensure a satisfactory standard of working conditions for employees in any industry to which assistance or protection may be given. That, again, is open to the Tariff Commission, at the moment, by implication. They do not report on the safeguards required, but on the conditions of the industry, the cost, efficiency, conditions of labour and rates of wages in Saorstát Eireann in respect of which application is made compared with the conditions and so forth of similar industries in other countries. Notably, that was done in the case of margarine. It will be for the House to implement the findings of the Commission in that respect.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Was not an amendment proposed to that effect and rejected by the Minister when the Bill was going through the House?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That may be, but on what ground? Was it on the ground of being unnecessary? I would ask those who think that that is a necessary power to give to the Tariff Commission to consider Section 2 of the Schedule. They are to report upon: "The cost, efficiency, conditions of labour, and rates of wages in Saorstát Eireann in the industry in respect to which the application is made as compared with such costs, efficiency, conditions and rates in other countries." Let us assume that a report comes in which states that the industry which is recommended for protection has a deplorable standard for its workers. When that comes before this House surely it will be for Deputies who are interested in the workers to insist that there should be a return from those engaged in that industry. I would not like, howover, to have that pressed too far. I do not know that it is in keeping with the idea of protection as originally spoken of in this House. Protection has been spoken of so far mainly in relation to industries in their infancy, and in relation to industries which, if helped in their infancy, show promise when they get to full growth they will be able to stand alone and without protection. If there is going to be some sacrifice expected from the consumer in the way of higher prices, surely there should be some concession expected from the employees.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Such as putting up with insanitary conditions?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No. No one could tolerate that. If there is a report as to insanitary conditions legislation can be brought in with regard to that. If an industry is to be helped in its infancy, and if that entails sacrifices to the consumers with regard to prices, is it not reasonable that workers who look forward to getting good employment when the industry is going well should not at the beginning insist on their full pound of flesh with regard to wages, and that they would do their part in helping to start the industry? I admit that has its dangers, and these have to be watched and guarded against. Deputy O'Connell, in his amendment, proposed an enlargement of the powers of the Commission. That is not necessary. These powers are there.

Mr. DAVIN

Would the Minister be prepared to justify a tariff which would give assistance to people in the clothing industry, and at the same time tolerate the employment of people under conditions similar to those in Leeds and places of that kind?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

One would have to consider that. I think there is a trades board with regard to clothing, and that board fixes the minimum rate. Trade boards are established in industries where the workers are not sufficiently organised to look after themselves. When one considers the starting of any industry and the fitting of it to labour conditions, one has to fit it under two categories. One is where the workers have organised and are able to look after their interests, and another, where there is a trade board. There may be a new industry, where workers are unorganised, and a trade board would require to be established, but there the Trade Board Act applies. One would require to have a trade board established to look after the minimum rates.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Does the trade board only look after the matter of wages?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No. If the Deputy means there are other things a trade board would require to look after, such as insanitary conditions, there is something other than a trade board in existence for dealing with insanitary conditions in any industry.

Mr. CASSIDY

Does the Minister know, as regards trade boards, that stipulations laid down by these boards are got over by the employers giving the work, in some industries, such as shirt-making, to workers in their own homes and paying them what should be looked upon as sweated wages?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not agree with anything of the sort. The trade board in the shirt industry looks forward to the paying of a definite rate of wages to out-workers. That is the practice, and to the people who are very keen in this House on the ruralising of industry it would be very bad policy to set out that the rate of wages paid in the homes should be the same as those paid under factory conditions. Sometimes the wages in the homes would have to be higher, because there is not the same mechanical power there, and more physical energy would be required on the part of the workers. There are industries in which the workers work under better conditions at home, and, therefore, the wages in these cases would not be the same as in the factory. I put it to Deputies generally that on the question of the motion and amendment no case has been made with regard to delay.

We are told delay has arisen. Until a case is made and proved we should not consider the case which has been sought to be based on the delays which have occurred. In so far as it has been stated to be based on the reluctance of manufacturers to go before the Commission by reason of the restrictions on the Commission, we should have a statement as to what these restrictions are, and whether they can be got over, or whether restrictions are there of sufficient number and importance to prevent the manufacturers, if they have a case to establish, from coming forward. Another point as to delay is that on the establishment of this State there had to be a very definite facing up to the problem of industry other than agriculture. As things were, there was little or no industry other than agriculture. What there was could be kept alive by going along and not paying much attention to it. A definite policy had to be adopted with regard to the question, are industries required other than agriculture? A definite answer was given to that question every time it was put up by every Party in this House in any of the debates on the matter which took place when I was present. People knew that the changing over of this country from being agricultural to being partly agricultural and partly industrial was one that could not be rushed without risk of great harm. In a six years period the economic foundations of this State have been laid. Very good work has been done in laying those foundations, and certain people were absent when we were laying them.

Mr. MacENTEE

40,000 emigrants per annum.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That type of remark leads nowhere and could be answered easily by a quotation from a Labour Senator to the people who are now very annoyed about emigration they themselves helped to cause.

Mr. LITTLE

By starting civil war.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes.

Mr. MacENTEE

As the Minister for Agriculture admitted.

Mr. GOREY

You were not in any war, civil or otherwise.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I will answer the interruptions by saying that if the emigrants were as capable of missing a train as Deputy MacEntee was on a famous occasion we would have less emigration. There was a six years period in which the industrial foundations of the country have been set. The people opposite were absent through their own fault. One does not blame them for coming here and complaining that nothing was done in their absence. It is easy for people to stand still and think that the world should stand still with them. People talked of having another round and passed their time with school men in disputation, and then found the work was being done when all this was going on.

Mr. LITTLE

On a point of order, what has this to do with the debate?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If the Deputy will contain himself he will hear. One does not mind a certain amount of annoyance on the other side at finding work was being done when they were not working, but that they should put up to this House, which was working, that no tariff was imposed just because they were absent, and that there has been a speeding up of the tariff policy just because they come here, is an impudent assertion. It is an assertion that is not even balanced by facts. There is no evidence for it. I put it to the House that they should consider what proportion of the imports of this country coming in in 1923, say, could be at any time subjected to a tariff; that they should take those that had been subjected to a tariff; then take the outstanding ones; find how many applications on outstanding ones are before the Commission; take those away, and find what is the residue. The residue is then going to be the matters upon which there is to be a speeding up owing to the arrival of these people. On that case, just because these people have made their appearance, we are asked to scrap the good legislation that was passed in this House some time ago. We are asked to scrap the legislation of two or three years ago. We are asked to take it on their word that there has not been anything done, when we can point to the results of a tariff policy on many millions of imports now tariffed that were not tariffed; when we can point to factories established, to a whole lot of people in employment who never would have been in employment if the policy of the other people had been adopted. When we have all these considerations before us, it is for the House to decide whether or not they want the Tariff Commission Act amended, simply in the way in which Deputy Lemass has put forward, to give them about five powers which at present they have, only that Deputy Lemass did not understand they had them, and to add on that they should be whole-time. We have all that accompanied by arguments founded mainly upon abuse of civil servants, because, no matter how much that is denied, we can go back and read what is said as to civil servants being under the thumb of certain people, and civil servants bringing in reports as and when ordered. That was the phrase used. If one can conceive he is an honourable man who does a thing as and when ordered, whether the facts are for or against, and whether his conscience tells him he should bring in a report for or against, he is speaking of a peculiar type of honourable man, and not the type of honourable man I conceive all civil servants, especially the three on the Tariff Commission, to be.

Mr. LEMASS

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the excellent rearguard action he has been fighting on behalf of the Tariff Commission, but I do not think it will be found he has done the Government case much good by the tactics he adopted. During the course of the debate many arguments were used against the motion on the Order Paper, and it would be impossible to pick out one half of them and try and answer them. But when we clear away a certain number of misrepresentations and irrelevancies we come down to certain basic objections, of which I think we shall be easily able to dispose. Some of the misstatements that were made are of a nature that require an answer. We have had the Minister for Justice stating that charges of personal dishonesty and personal corruption were made against civil servants, and he implied that they had been made against members of the Tariff Commission. We have had statements somewhat of a similar nature from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He said that no matter how much it was denied, the main purpose of this motion was to level abuse at the heads of the civil servants who compose the Commission. No charge of personal dishonesty or of corruption was made by any Deputy on these Benches against civil servants. The only such charge that was made was that implied in the speech of Deputy O'Hanlon, who insinuated that because, as he thought, tariffs increased the cost of living, therefore the members of the Commission were so anxious to increase the cost-of-living bonus that they would impose tariffs indiscriminately. The Deputy could not have been serious in making that charge, because the Tariff Commission have shown no undue anxiety to impose tariffs.

We have had Deputy Tierney stating that the purpose of the motion was to attack the Tariff Commission, and he said there was no need to attack the unfortunate members of the Tariff Commission. We have not attacked the members of the existing Tariff Commission. We have not endeavoured to imply in any way that they are unfit to hold positions on the Tariff Commission. But we do say that no matter how excellent or efficient they may be, they are only human beings in the Civil Service. Irrespective of what their efficiency, ability or degree of honour may be, they cannot help being influenced by statements such as were made in the House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to the tariff on flour, and by Deputy Heffernan in relation to the tariff on woolen cloth. Those who compose the Commission must have been influenced by these. We think, as we have stated in the motion, that a better Commission would be secured if it were not exclusively composed of civil servants. We have had other statements that it is perhaps not necessary to deal with. We have Deputy Cooper stating how he travelled in an English railway carriage in Rome. He endeavoured to convince us from that fact that as an English railway carriage was not out of order in Rome it was quite in order to have them travelling around Mullingar and Sligo as well. It does not matter one iota whether Deputy Cooper travels in an English railway carriage in Rome but it should matter to any Deputy that there are 500 men idle in Inchicore for the last two years, and that the remaining men in the works are mainly on short time. That fact does seriously concern this House. The fact that rolling stock is being imported instead of being made at Inchicore works is something that does seriously concern us.

Mr. DAVIN

What about the buses?

Mr. LEMASS

The same thing applies in the case of buses. We raised that point, that as a result of the existing transport situation buses were being rushed into the country as fast as they could be built in England, and as a result there is probably, or will be in the near future, a surplus of buses, and even when the tariff war has fought itself out to a conclusion, there will be no hope of a revival of the bus-building trade in this country, whether there is a tariff imposed or not. We have had a statement made by the Minister for Finance, and supported by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that there has been no avoidable delay in the consideration of applications. We have had the Minister for Finance quoting a number of dates concerning the various applications made to the Commission. He has given us certain facts also in relation to the American Tariff Commission, and endeavoured to establish that bad as the Irish Commission was the American Commission is worse. The speeches made by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in that direction bring us straight up against the main question that must be settled: Does the Government think that if those engaged in an industry do not make application for a tariff, or are slack or inefficient in the manner in which they make the application, they are relieved of all responsibility in the matter? That is the real question that must be settled by the House. What is the policy of the Government? Do they think that as they have inherited a free trade policy from the British Government they must adopt it and endeavour to preserve it against all attacks? The Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke as if he was in deadly fear that some loop-hole might be made by which an existing industry could achieve protection. If there is a case to be made for protecting any industry, in any way, it is the duty of the Government to go after the facts concerning it, irrespective of the attitude of those engaged in the industry and to endeavour to do the best for the nation and not the best thing by the particular group connected with that particular industry. There are more people concerned with the welfare of industry than the shareholders and the owners of a concern. There are the workers, and their interests are of much greater importance to the nation than the interests of a small group of owners.

It is the Irish workers we are interested in, and it is on their part we think the Government should take action. The Government have inherited a free trade policy and they have made that policy their own, and they are endeavouring to take up the attitude that that policy should not be departed from or amended in any way unless a strong case is made in favour of it and unless public opinion is aroused to a considerable extent to demand it. There should be a complete reversal of that attitude.

We think that the Government, as a result of its position, is putting the manufacturing classes of this nation into a false position. If they had inherited a protectionist policy, or if, when they took up office, they had reversed the free trade policy they inherited and adopted a protectionist policy, they would put the traders and importers in the position of having to come before the Tariff Commission and demand exemption from protection. We maintain that that is the position that should be here, not a Tariff Commission to decide in what way a free trade policy can be weakened to allow a particular form of protection to be freed, but in what way a general protectionist policy could be weakened, where necessary, in order to allow a particular class of importation to take place. The Minister for Industry and Commerce questioned the statement I made about the fact that there was no confidence amongst the manufacturing and business community in this country in the existing Tariff Commission. That lack of confidence is not due to any discounting of the abilities of the members of the Commission, and it is not really due to the powers of the Commission, but to the general feeling that the policy of the Government is such that the Commission, in recommending the imposition of a tariff, would be submitting a recommendation contrary to the wishes of the Government, and that in the long run it is the wishes of the Government that are going to count. Whether that lack of confidence is well founded or not I do not know, but it exists, and anyone in touch with the manufacturing classes must know that it exists, and I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce must know it exists in regard to a certain class of manufactures.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not.

Mr. LEMASS

Take the case of the paper manufacturing trade. The paper manufacturers want a tariff, but they have not applied for a tariff. They have refused, I understand, to pay the fee asked in order to put the case before the Tariff Commission. What happened? The paper making industry is going down. The paper mill at Clondalkin has been bought by a scrap-iron merchant, and probably in the near future it will cease to exist. Does the Government think the responsibility is lifted off their shoulders because the paper manufacturers have failed to carry out the regulations laid down in the Tariff Act? Does the Government not think it should interfere and give the paper manufacturers protection for their industry, whether they are prepared to carry out their regulations or not? Irrespective of the attitude of the manufacturers, the Government responsibility is such that they should carry out, if necessary, independent investigation and that they should take independent action.

We have the defence put forward by various people of the part-time nature of the Commission, that tariffs require very careful consideration and that there should be no rushed action or hasty decisions. That was the defence put forward certainly by the Minister for Justice. But we find his Party are not in general agreement in the matter. It is obviously wrong, of course, in the first place, to assume that because a part-time Commission moves slowly a whole-time Commission would move quickly—apparently it was some such idea the Minister for Industry and Commerce had in mind—that a whole-time Commission would move unduly quickly, whereas you can get the work done quicker and, we believe, with the same amount of due consideration by a Commission such as suggested in the motion as you can by the existing Commission. We have had Deputy Tierney stating that if the Commission were a whole-time Commission they would have a considerable amount of time on their hands and would not earn their salaries.

Professor TIERNEY

What I said was that in the notion at the back of Deputy Lemass's mind was apparently that. I did not say that that was my idea.

Mr. LEMASS

We have had Deputy Byrne stating that there was not enough work for the present Commission to do, and that there would certainly not be sufficient work for a Commission such as was suggested in the motion. We have had Deputy Bennett saying that if the proposal in the motion were adopted, in five or six months' time this Dáil might be called upon to discuss tariffs on every industry imaginable. What a horrible thought! And the Minister for Finance suggested that the proposed Commission would spend a good deal of time and money investigating conditions in industries that were not worth investigating. Let us try and get behind the mentality expressed in these words. The horror conceived by Deputy Bennett of this Dáil discussing tariffs on every industry imaginable, on the one hand, and an equally ridiculous proposal of a Commission being appointed to consider the conditions existing in industries not worth investigating mentioned by the Minister for Finance. Let us place these two ideas on one side and take the ideas expressed by Deputy Byrne and others that it would be waste of money to set up a Commission because it would have nothing to do.

We also had a speech from Deputy Good and he was the one Deputy who spoke against the motion from conviction, from the rock of principle. He certainly put the arguments against the motion in a manner that no other Deputy has done. He said industries in this country have been dying out. He said that there are only 20 or 25 left not already protected, and why waste time and money in trying to save that twenty-five. That is the real argument against the motion, and, as I said, that is the real question that this House must settle, whether we are satisfied with the point of view expressed by Deputy Good or with the point of view expressed from those benches, that is the one which the House should adopt. The question is whether we should endeavour to save the existing industries in this country and revive those gone or let the policy of drift which was initited by the Government continue in operation until even the existing industries have disappeared. We believe that the Commission proposed by us would have plenty of work to do, more work possibly than could be conveniently done by one Commission. However, remember there is a possibility that the most effective way that results could be achieved would be to appoint one, not two or three Commissions.

The difficulty which the Minister for Finance indicated was that the existing Commission, having to take applications one at a time, was unable to cover in good time all the thirteen applications which had been made up-to-date, and that as a result it could not be alleged that their part-time nature was responsible for the delay. Well, if the Government was alive to its responsibility, if the Government had answered the question that I put in favour of protecting Irish industries, they would easily find the means of rectifying the machinery that exists to enable whatever investigations are necessary to be carried out speedily, and whatever means are to be taken to be taken at once, because there is very little time for delay. If we are going to stop the rot that exists in Irish industries, if we are going to stop the drain on the vitality of the nation that emigration represents, if we are going to stop the drain on our capital which the adverse trade balance represents, we must act soon; we cannot afford to argue at length about finicky points. We must make up our mind one way or the other, and having made it up we must stick to our decision.

It has been stated that the whole-time nature of the Commission proposed in this motion was the main argument in its favour. It is not. The essential thing in the motion—and it is contained also in the amendment—is the proposal to give the Commission power to conduct independent investigations. We have, with the machinery at present in existence, restrictions on the Commission, preventing them from considering the case of any industry unless an application is made by persons engaged in it, or persons to be engaged in the manufacture of the article concerned. These restrictions have rendered it useless as a machine for reviving the industrial life of this country. We require to have a Commission that can act independently, taking no account whatsoever of the wishes of any section or any class, even those engaged in a particular industry, to make the necessary investigations.

Take, for example, the question of the railways. We are not dealing with a new industry, an industry which does not exist at the moment and which it would be a good idea to introduce into the country; we are dealing with an existing industry. You have a works at Inchicore fully equipped for the manufacture of rolling stock, with a plant which, I am informed, is certainly as efficient as any in Great Britain. Since 1925 the manufacture of rolling stock and the manufacture of the necessary parts for rolling stock has not been done in that works except on a small scale. At present the Company are importing most of their requirements, and as a result 500 men have been dismissed and the remainder are on short time. Do you think there is one prospect in a thousand that the railway company are going to come before the Tariff Commission with an application for a tariff on imported railway stock? And yet, if a good case could be made out, as we believe it could, in favour of such a tariff, should there not be power in the hands of the Commission to make the necessary investigations and to recommend tariffs, despite the wishes, the opposition even, of the railway company? Again, it is not a small group in the manager's office of the Company with which we are concerned; it is a large number of Irish workers whose livelihood depends on the action that the Government may decide to take.

Then there is the question of agriculture. The Minister for Finance told us that applications for protection of agricultural produce were received from, I think, the Country Kerry Committee of Agriculture and the Irish Farmers' Protectionist League, but that the applications were not referred to the Commission because these bodies were not representative. What would he consider a representative body? The Farmers' Union, of course, claims to be a representative body, but I think they have long since been found out. Certainly we would not accept them as being representatives of agricultural interests. I would like to know if the Fianna Fáil Party would be taken as being representative of agricultural interests in a manner sufficient to enable them to make application to the Tariff Commission. There are 27 working farmers on these benches and surely they can claim to be acquainted with the interests of the agricultural industry and to be representative of the people who sent them here. Therefore, we must assume that the Fianna Fáil Party or perhaps the Cumann na nGaedheal Party are the only bodies in existence that could claim to be representative of agricultural interests and could approach the Tariff Commission with an application.

Again agriculture is a very wide term. We are told that it is our basic industry and all the rest of it. Our only staple product at the moment is grass really and we believe it should be the policy of the Government to stop, to make every possible effort necessary to stop, the decline in tillage and to promote some higher form of production than grass. We believe that the adoption of a proper protective policy in relation to certain items of agricultural production would be useful and good for the agricultural community. We admit that investigations should be carried out in order to arrive at all the necessary facts relating to the subject; but in order to enable these investigations to be carried out machinery must be set up. The existing Tariff Commission such as that suggested by us, should be empowered to take whatever evidence they consider necessary, to step in on their own initiative to carry out these investigations and finally to submit their recommendations to the Executive Council and through them to this House, irrespective of what the Farmers' Union or some similar organisation may think.

There are, too, the case of manufacturers who are also traders—and there are quite a number of them—firms that some years ago devoted themselves almost exclusively to a manufacturing trade but who have since become importers of the products which they formerly manufactured and at the same time continuing their manufacturing industry. They find in many cases that their import trade is much more profitable although their import trade is very largely carried on on the strength of the good-will which they acquired in manufacturing. People in that position are not going to come before the Tariff Commission and make the necessary application for a tariff, and yet it is conceivable that a tariff would be a necessary step to produce a revival of industry and good for the economic standard of the country as a whole. There are the manufacturers whose personal interests would not be served by a tariff, although the industry with which they are concerned would be revived in this country in consequence of it. We think that the Tariff Commission again should have power in these cases to take independent action, because there is no likelihood of those at present engaged in the industry coming forward with an application. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.40 p.m., to 3 o'clock on Thursday, 8th March.