I rise to support the line taken by Deputy Donegan in relation to this Bill. It is unwise to have an across-the-board tariff reduction when it is possible to avoid this and when we have industries that need nursing a little further and need whatever additional assistance we can give them for a further period.
Deputy Desmond has just said we are going through serious economic difficulties at the present time and that we should use every device at our disposal to assist people in industry and at least to keep in employment the people who are in employment and make sure there will be no further reduction. There are at present 70,000 people unemployed. In a serious situation of that kind we should take a very keen look at every move we can make lest any such move should have the effect of reducing employment still further.
Under this Order, No. 178, it has been possible—I do not know under what authority—to reclassify a certain commodity, a commodity which, under the Brussels nomenclature, is not now dutiable. It has been possible for us to take these trailers out and put them in under a different classification. I do not know where this authority is given to the Minister, but it is a good thing that it is there. If it can be done in the case of certain trailers, I see no reason why it cannot be extended somewhat further without breaching any existing agreement.
Like Deputy Donegan, I personally would not be over scrupulous in our approach to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. I have discussed with some members of the British Parliament what I consider to be a number of breaches of the agreement of which the British side have been guilty since this agreement was entered into and they agree quite frankly that they have breached the agreement. As Deputy Donegan says, if it was breached it was because might was right and there was very little or nothing we could do about it.
We should protect industries that need this extended period of protection by being selective and by going through the large number of items of the various industries and saying: "We will not reduce in this case. We cannot because the industry would suffer and employment would be reduced" or: "This industry needs further nursing and while we can reduce by a small amount we certainly cannot reduce by the full 10 per cent." There is no question but that this would be accepted. It probably would be resisted but while they were fighting against it and while we were opposing them, all the time this industry would be getting the benefit of this period. It would not be advisable to adopt this procedure on a broad basis and without being selective, because our industry must be prepared for the competition it will meet in the circumstances of free trade. We must move as fast as possible towards that competitive position in industry, but we must do it carefully and selectively. There are industries and sectors of industry where, if we were to provide this shelter for as long as possible, we could do a certain amount of good, sufficient good to carry them through to a point where they would be able to stand up to the European competition we shall meet in the future. I have a feeling, which I think is shared by Ministers, that commitments into which we have already entered will be honoured and that we can make a strong case for honouring them if and when we get into the EEC.
I was surprised and disappointed to hear the Minister for Finance trying to make the case, when opposing an amendment of mine recently, that we were in a straitjacket, that we had now made our application and there was nothing further we could do, that we could be accused of all sorts of things. The British could not care less about what they are accused of and I would say the same about continental people I have met. I would not describe them as being unscrupulous but I would describe them as being hard-headed business people who realise that in industry and commerce the world over you have a hard fight and you make whatever case you can and do whatever you can possibly get away with for as long as you are allowed to get away with it.
If it is to the advantage of any sector of our economy to refuse to carry out this reduction at the present time, or for a further period, we should resist it. I am at least as anxious as any other Deputy to ensure that industry will succeed and that employment should arise from making things at home. Here we have a particular item, trailers and these, as far as I know, are made only by one firm which is tantamount to a monopoly. I understand that these are really good trailers which nobody could fault and I understand that this industry gives a lot of employment and we should be anxious to ensure that employment would continue to be provided. I understand also that they are making the maximum effort to build themselves up to the point at which they will be competitive even within the EEC. This industry needs to be supported but it is quite a dangerous thing to do if there is no opposition. I should like to hear the Minister tell the House that protecting this single industry will not impose on the people who buy these trailers, the farmers, a much bigger price for trailers than otherwise they would have to pay.
I would agree, that even if they are somewhat dearer, that because of the employment and because of the desirability of having an industry that can be built up still further, we should permit this and we should be anxious to do it. However, there is a danger which I should like the Minister to recognise. I should like him to assure the House that we are not protecting the industry to the point where we are putting a serious burden on the backs of people who in some cases are probably less well able to pay. Otherwise I agree with this protection. I have the greatest admiration for the industry and the manner in which it has been built up as well as for the product being turned out.
Having said that, I think we have taken the easy way out in this Bill. We have just carried out this tariff reduction across the board. The Minister could find himself in difficulties that if it were known he was going to do this he would have a clamour from every industry. However, he is in the happy position that he now has a fairly detailed report on every industry because such a survey was carried out over a number of years in order to find out what these industries would be up against in the circumstances of free trade. Having this information, the Minister should go through it with a fine comb and decide that a further 10 per cent tariff reduction in this case is going to deal a very severe blow to this industry, a blow from which it is unlikely to recover, and if it gets this extra bit of time and if it is desirable because it is giving good employment, then the Minister should take out that particular industry and be man enough to say: "We are going to protect you regardless of what the other industries will say, regardless of what the people will say, that this is picking out and favouring a certain industry." If he were to set up an independent board to look at the report they could pick out the weak spots and take them off the Minister's shoulders so that he could not be accused of being politically partial to one industry or to one sector.
I am sorry to say that I think this is taking the easy way. In taking the easy way and, perhaps, being too impetuous about getting this extra effort put in by industrialists to equip themselves to meet the competition which they will definitely meet in a very short time, we may be too impetuous to get to that point. It would be well worthwhile if we had set up this body to examine and select the industries in which we think this tariff reduction should not take place, certainly on the full 10 per cent or at a reduced rate.