Although this Bill proposes to improve the original Tariff Commission Act of 1926, in a manner which we have frequently suggested, it does not, in any way, modify our opposition to the principle of the original Act. We believe that the establishment of the Tariff Commission, and the Government's attitude towards it, have resulted in a definite delegation of the fiscal powers of the Government to the Tariff Commission. That was in consequence of the fact that the Commission, although not required by the Act to make formal recommendations either for or against applications submitted to it, have in fact, always done so, and have drafted their reports for the purpose of making a case in support of their recommendation and not for the purpose for which they were established, that is, the provision of all essential and relevant information concerning the application to members of the Government, and through them, to members of the Dáil. The Government have always acted upon the reports of the Tariff Commission apparently without question or consideration. So complete has been the abandonment of the Government's fiscal powers to the Tariff Commission that on occasions on which the Tariff Commission recommended against applications these recommendations were not considered by the Dáil at all unless some private Deputy moved a motion in the same relation.
No machinery exists under the Act, and it is not proposed to insert any machinery by this Bill, to ensure that applications submitted to the Tariff Commission, but not recommended upon favourably by them, will come before the Dáil, which is, or, at any rate, should be, the legislative assembly for the people of the TwentySix Counties. The establishment of this Commission in accordance with the Act of 1926, and the subordination of the Government's judgment in tariff matters to the judgment of the Commission has meant a definite loss of that freedom of action in fiscal matters without which the Government cannot possibly deal effectively with the situation existing in this country. The Government, only last week, discovered, in the case of the dairying industry, that the circumstances of an industry frequently require that immediate action should be taken if a prima facie case for the imposition of a tariff exists, subject to whatever alteration or modification may be considered desirable after some detailed and subsequent examination.
Even in such cases, however, we think that a more detailed examination can best be performed by committees, composed of persons possessing special knowledge of the industry concerned, and meeting for the purpose of submitting reports on that industry, and on that industry alone. Some permanent body to consider applications for the reduction or alteration of tariffs and to watch the effect of tariffs should exist, but should not be exalted to the position occupied by the present Tariff Commission, in which it, and it only, can decide whether or not a tariff should be imposed. Of course, despite the fact that this Commission has been established with those powers, the deciding factor influencing it in all its decisions has been the policy of the Government. The personnel of the Commission included persons who had on various occasions in the past definitely committed themselves to the advocacy of doctrinaire free trade views, and in this respect the new Commission will be no improvement on the old.
I do not wish to discuss persons who are not here to speak for themselves, but we are entitled to criticise the Government for having placed in the important office of members of the Tariff Commission persons who have signed reports definitely advocating that the policy of free trade is the best policy for the people of this country to adopt. It is unreasonable to expect that these people are going suddenly to forget the views which they have been advocating and to adopt a judicial frame of mind when applications come before them. I think we may take it that members of the new Commission, like those of the old, will be prejudiced against tariffs and will not be in favour of their application, as reports of the old Commission have clearly indicated. The Tariff Commission method has been designed by the Government to ensure the maximum delay in making a decision on all applications.
It is not necessary to give many instances in order to prove the truth of that contention. On 4th June last, for example, the Minister for Finance told us that the reports upon the applications under consideration by the Tariff Commission in relation to wrapping-paper and to coach bodies were almost ready and that he was expecting them within a very short period from the date on which he spoke, namely, 4th June. One of these reports was published last week and the other has not yet been published. On the same occasion the Minister for Finance referred to the Grain Inquiry which was conducted by members of the Tariff Commission, and he said that the drafting of the report was reaching a very advanced stage and that the report was likely to be in his hands at an early date. He spoke later, and indicated that the Tariff Commission would be able to present the report of the Grain Inquiry within six weeks. The report has not been submitted yet, although six months have passed since then.
I submit that the failure of the Tariff Commission to fulfil an undertaking, which it apparently had given to the Minister when he spoke in that manner in the Dáil, was not due to the fact that the members of that Commission were not whole-time officers, but rather to the fact that the Government indicated to the Commission that they did not want the report until the Dáil reassembled in November.
Now to deal with the provisions of the Bill. It provides, as the Minister indicated, for one alteration of considerable moment in the existing Act, and also for the continuance of the existing Commission while the applications now before it are being completed. The section which provides that the Executive Council may submit a question to the Commission, irrespective of whether an application for a tariff had been received from any group of manufacturers, is undoubtedly a substantial improvement on the existing Act. It is an improvement which we have urged here on many occasions during the last three years, and there was no one so eloquent in denouncing the proposal as the Minister for Finance. I would like him to tell us why he has suddenly changed his mind in regard to the desirability of this provision.
Only as late as July 29th last he condemned it as unnecessary, and said that in the Tariff Commission Act the Government deliberately took up the point of view that they would not impose a tariff unless the people who were either carrying on the industry, or who satisfied the Commission that they could and would carry it on, made an application. On another occasion—the occasion of the debate on the Estimate this year—he said that they would not put on a tariff in the hope that somebody would take it up, or that something might happen, or unless they had a definite application from persons engaged in the industry concerned. If Deputies take the trouble to go back to the debates they will find that when the matter was before the Dáil the same proposal was made by members on this side, but was rejected with scorn by the Minister for Finance. Whatever has happened within the last six months, the Minister for Finance has made a complete right-about-turn, and now asks the Dáil to embody in an Act a suggestion to which he would not listen in the first half of this year.
It may be that the Government have realised that they are out of step with the rest of the country in the matter of protection, and are trying to give people the belief that they are prepared to move faster in this matter than in the past. That, however, is only pretence. If they were anxious to move faster, it is not a Bill to amend the Tariff Commission that would be before us, but a Bill to abolish it. The Tariff Commission system, no matter how you try to improve it or patch it up, makes for delay, and the appointment of a Tariff Commission, which includes members who are hostile to the idea of affording protection to Irish industry, makes for something more than delay; it makes for futility.
The Minister for Finance was just as strongly opposed to the idea of a whole-time Tariff Commission as he was to the idea of having questions referred to it by the Executive Council. Just as frequently as the other matter was raised here so also the matter of having the Tariff Commission a whole-time body was repeatedly brought forward by Deputies on these benches, and on every occasion the Minister for Finance said that the appointment of a whole-time Tariff Commission would be of no benefit whatever. It was not merely that he did not think that a whole-time Tariff Commission would not have enough work to do, but he urged that the actual operation of the machinery required that a certain interval should elapse between the stages of hearing applications and that no matter how many applications were pending there would he periods when the members of the Commission would have no duty to perform.
On June 4th, which is not a very long time ago, he said: "I think there are not going to be many more applications, at least not so many as would occupy even one Commission working full time." Since June 4th some of the existing applications have been dealt with and, as far as I know, no further applications of major importance have been made. Why, therefore, has the Government decided upon the change of policy if it is not intended merely to hoodwink the people into believing that they have changed their attitude also? If the appointment of a whole-time Tariff Commission is going to put some Irish industrialists out of pain more quickly, then it may be an advantage because, as Deputies are aware, there are owners of industrial concerns in this country who are keeping them running at a loss in the hope that at some time in the future their applications for tariffs will be favourably considered and that they will be able to put their concerns upon a paying basis. Most of those industrialists who have run their concerns in that way have found that they were doomed to disappointment—the persons connected with the flour-milling industry, the persons connected with the paper-making industry, and, we fear, the persons connected with the coach-building industry.
The attitude of the Government on the question of whole-time protection for Irish industries and of establishing proper machinery to enable that protection to be considered has been most unsatisfactory. I do not know if that is because they are opposed to tariffs on principle or whether it is merely a reflection of the mentality often shown by the Minister for Industry and Commerce here, who believes that no Irish factory, no matter how long it has been established, or how well it is doing, can be efficiently managed, using the word "efficiency" to denote the way factories are managed in England. We hope that as a result of the passage of this Act some of the applications that have been pending as long as from 1927 and 1928 will be reported on, shall we say, before 1933. There is not much prospect of it if the new Commission is going to continue in the same manner as the old, visiting concerns in England, discussing the question of affording protection for Irish industries with the English competitors of these industries and delaying until all the trivial points in relation to the applications have been cleared up to their satisfaction. In respect of almost all the applications which came before the Tariff Commission there was a clear case for protection, but the Tariff Commission did not think it desirable to take the unprecedented step which they took last week and recommend to the Government that a tariff should be imposed pending consideration of the application by the Commission.
There was no case for the imposition of a duty on butter, other than a political case, in the manner in which it was imposed which did not exist also for the imposition of a duty upon imported coachwork. Deputies are aware that when the application of the coach-builders for a tariff was made in 1926 the development of road transport was only beginning. There were very few buses then in the country, but everybody knew that there was going to be a very rapid development of bus traffic in these days and that the competing companies would be rushing in buses as quickly as possible. The Government were asked to bring it to the notice of the Tariff Commission and to impose a temporary prohibition on the importation of buses while the Tariff Commission was considering the application, but they would not consider that request. The country is now flooded with buses. Some of the factories which were then working are now closed down, the skilled workers have gone to England or emigrated to some other country, and the efficiency of the industry is very much impaired while the report has not yet been submitted.
If the appointment of a whole-time Tariff Commission and the giving of this power to the Executive Council are going to result merely in the submission of a larger number of reports of the type we got last week, in relation to the butter industry, or some time ago in relation to the flour industry, then it would be better to have the Bill rejected. The publication of such reports does not provide the members of the Dáil with the information which they should have and does not solve the difficulties of Irish industries but merely helps to provide ammunition for those who, in the interest of the British importers, are anxious to ensure that free trade will be the accepted policy of the majority in this Dáil. Having advocated the amendment of the Tariff Commission Act in the past, in the way in which the Minister proposes to amend it now, presumably we will have to support this Bill, but we do so with no enthusiasm whatever because we do not feel that it will make the slightest difference whether the Bill is passed or not so long as the policy of the Executive Council remains as it is.