Before a Vote is taken on this motion there are one or two points that I want to deal with in order that there may be no misunderstanding about it. It was stated by the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and a number of other speakers that it would not be possible to get men with the qualifications required for the Commission suggested in the motion who would be unprejudiced, detached, and absolutely impartial, but I submit that no case has been made out to show that it is necessary that the members of the Commission should be unprejudiced or detached or impartial. Certainly if the nomination of the Tariff Commission was in my hands I would not insist upon these qualifications in the persons whom I would select, and I do not think that the practice of seeking for people who are unprejudiced, detached and impartial is followed in the case of other Commissions. I also think that the provision in the motion that the persons selected should be approved by the Dáil is a necessary provision, and I think that the Dáil, at any rate, would be as impartial in its selections and as anxious to seek the best persons to constitute a Commission as the Executive Council has proved itself to be.
A number of Deputies thought that the motion gave a good opportunity for having a sly dig at the Fianna Fáil Party for advocating an increase in expenditure. The cost involved in the setting up of the Commission proposed in the motion would be very slight. A few weeks ago a woollen mill closed down in Kilkenny while an application for a tariff on woollen cloth was before the Commission. I think that if it is a case of cost we would find the money well spent to set up a Commission such as is proposed in the motion. It was suggested by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce that special committees should be set up to deal with applications which could not come before the Commission as at present constituted. With regard to that, I merely want to state that such a system is in operation in England at present in connection with the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and there is, I think, general agreement amongst all the political parties in that country that it is absolutely unsuitable, and there is a general demand for its termination.
The Minister for Finance stated that it was not desirable that the Commission should deal with the question as to what price protected goods should be sold at by native manufacturers. In that connection I merely want to point out that the Schedule of the existing Act provides that the Commission shall report upon the effect "the granting in whole or in part of the concessions asked for in the application would be likely to have" on the consumers of the goods produced by the industry in respect of which an application was made, and on the cost of living. The Commission is expected to report on that, and we do not think that it is unreasonable to ask them to go further and to report upon how the benefits to a trade, secured as a result of protection, could be passed on to the consumers. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that it would be unfair to those engaged in a protected industry to ask them to give any guarantees in respect of prices. We on these benches do not think that that would be unfair. We think that if the community is going to take action for the benefit of those engaged in a particular industry, the community should be satisfied that the benefits will be passed on to the consuming public, and in actual fact it has been the practice of the Commission up to the present to seek such guarantees from those who came before them.
The only other matter to which I want to refer is the section of the amendment which deals with the recommendation that the Commission should "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 Davin stated he understood that in proposing my motion I had spoken against that section. I will read what I did say. I said:—
I am not at all sure that it is advisable to impose that duty upon the Tariff Commission. The Commission may not be the most suitable body to decide the safeguards required. There is in that section the suggestion that the Government has a re sponsibility for ensuring satisfactory working conditions only in the case of protected industries. We hold that it is the duty of the Government to ensure that satisfactory working conditions should prevail in every industry operating in the State and not merely in those protected.
Our view is that the Commission, constituted for the purpose of investigating all applications for tariffs, should not have imposed upon it the duties suggested in Paragraph 3 of the amendment, not because that duty should not be carried out, but because the Commission would not be the best body imaginable for carrying out that duty. The safeguards or the guarantees that would be given when the application was before the Commission would be of little value unless there would be continuing investigation of the conditions existing. That should be the regular and permanent duty of a section of the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to all industries and, we are prepared to agree, particularly in relation to protected industries. As I stated in moving the motion, the points of agreement between the amendment and the motion are much more numerous than the points of difference. I regret that the amendment has been brought forward. I believe that it is likely to cause some confusion amongst those who have not been giving the matter very careful consideration.
