Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 May 1938

Vol. 21 No. 3

Prices Commission (Extension of Functions) Bill, 1938—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 1:

After sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, request the Commission to report, as respects any class or kind of goods, on the extent (if any) to which the cost of economical and efficient production is higher than in the United Kingdom and to make recommendations as to the steps necessary to secure for producers and manufacturers full opportunity of reasonable competition in the sale of such goods to Great Britain.

I thought that somebody was going to raise this matter on the previous sub-section. My object in putting down this amendment was to raise a point which I was not sure I could raise, strictly speaking, within the Bill itself unless I put down an amendment. I have felt for some time that, if we were going to get a reduction of prices and a greater variety from our manufacturers, it was of the utmost importance that they, in the course of a reasonable time, should develop some export trade, and that nothing would be better for the majority of our manufacturers—particularly those who have grown up in the last four or five years—than if they could get into a market, such as, let us say, Great Britain, and sell some of their products. Now, assuming that, as I maintain is the case in regard to a very large percentage of Irish manufactured products, the quality is good and that they have reached a reasonable standard of proficiency, the only thing that prevents that export is the price. In some cases, that price may be due to the manufacturer's own fault; in other cases, it may be due to circumstances which are immediately or substantially beyond his control, and it seems to me that, if you are going to have an enquiry by the Prices Commission and a review of existing tariffs, if that review is to be on the basis set out in Article 8 of the Agreement, with which we are all familiar and which I need not read out now, the Prices Commission, of necessity, under the terms of Article 8, will have to investigate to some extent the causes for increased cost of production here and make allowances for such of those as are consistent with efficient production. I think that is the phrase used.

The Minister may say that he has the powers in the Bill to get this report. If so I am satisfied. It seems to me desirable that in this report, whether it is made public or not, the Minister should have information in the case of those industries sent directly to him as to what the Prices Commission, which is an impartial body, considers are the differences in the cost of production here as against Great Britain. In other words, what would have to be made up to put the Irish manufacturer in the same position of "reasonable competition" in Great Britain which it is intended, except in the case of new industries, to provide for the British manufacturer here. I think if that were ascertained it might be found wise policy, at any rate for a limited period, for the Government to consider whether some assistance should be given to make up that difference. There are quite a number of ways in which that assistance might be given, whether by means of licences, a reduction of certain taxes or certain allowances or even a bounty if that were found desirable, though I am not in favour of an ordinary export bounty. If that were done it could only be done within the spirit and terms of the Agreement, and only to such extent as would enable the Irish manufacturer to compete on even terms. There could be no such question as getting up an export trade by paying for it out of the pockets of the people here.

If this Agreement should, following an examination by the Prices Commission, result, as I think it must do if it is going to have any effect at all from the British point of view, in an increase of the imports of British manufactured goods, it is not at all impossible that at the lower duty the actual revenue from this may be higher. My suggestion is that the Government might carefully watch that situation, and might ear-mark such increased duty as they may receive on these particular commodities, and use that sum for the assistance of the commodities that obtain some proportion of an export trade. It is quite common to find that everybody who complains here of the cost of production begins by speaking of wages. I think that, in some cases, the wages paid here are proportionately higher when compared with Great Britain, but I doubt if any Irish manufacturer wants to get wages down to the absolute rock bottom. There are quite a number of other things besides wages. Paper, for instance, is very much higher, and a number of other things necessary for an export trade.

I do not know the position in Great Britain, but I do know that in the case of manufacturers here who are competing directly with Northern Ireland, they are faced by the fact that the factories in Northern Ireland are derated. I know quite well that our Minister for Finance would be horrified if he heard that I intended to start a campaign, even if I were able to do it, for the derating of factories. I suggest that it might be possible to provide an allowance to meet that to the extent to which there was export. I suggest that if this Agreement is to be made work, one way of giving wise and sane protection to our industries would be to help them to get some export trade. It would be good for them also in this way, that if with a concession equal to the proper difference in the cost of efficient production they were not able to build up an export trade, then I am afraid they would have to face the fact that there was something wrong elsewhere, and to that extent it would be good for the community.

If the Minister thinks that he has this power already, then what I am suggesting is that in the case of industries in which there was a hope of building up an export trade, he should ask for this additional information from the Prices Commission when they are reviewing the tariffs which, in view of the terms of Article 8, means reviewing the industry as a whole. It is with a view to drawing attention to that as a possibility that I put down the amendment. If the Minister thinks it is not necessary, then I am not going to press it. I would not, of course, have put down an amendment to any Bill which was part and parcel of the Agreement.

This amendment introduces something which the Senator, I think, has not provided for. If accepted, it would mean introducing into the Bill the term "United Kingdom". That, I think, would require an amendment of the definitions. In the two Bills that we have dealt with, the term "United Kingdom" is in disagreement. United Kingdom, in one, is defined as "Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man." In the other the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are deleted. I simply want to call attention to the fact that if the amendment were accepted, it would, in my opinion, involve the moving of a further amendment on the Report Stage.

I do not know if Senator Douglas wishes to initiate a discussion on the advisability of putting an export bounty on industrial products. I do not think this is altogether a suitable time to discuss the practicability or advisability of adopting that as a policy. The question which the Senator wishes to have considered is whether it is desirable by any such means to assist manufacturers to export their products to the United Kingdom. That is a fairly wide question, and I doubt very much if we would gain wisdom by debating it at length now. I am clear in my mind that it is not desirable to ask the Prices Commission to deal with that question or to submit recommendations relating to it. That, of course, is the direct purpose of the Senator's amendment. I think that the Prices Commission will have a very considerable volume of work to discharge both in consequence of the enactment of this measure and of the Trade Agreement as a whole, and also arising out of its original functions as a Prices Commission, and that it would be unwise to put upon it the further task which the Senator contemplates.

In any event, I doubt very much if the making of a decision, whether or not to give assistance in the export of industrial products, could be facilitated by an inquiry of the kind which the Prices Commission would ordinarily undertake. It has been my experience that in matters of that kind it is necessary to meet directly the industrialists concerned, and discuss not merely the measure of assistance which they may require but also the extent to which they are going to take advantage of it, and make detailed arrangements involving a number of different possibilities.

That type of investigation, of which we have had some limited experience, is a very different type of business from holding a public inquiry such as the Prices Commission would ordinarily hold, nor do I think that the Prices Commission would get from such an inquiry the really vital information on which a decision would have to be based. It is extremely improbable that the Government can undertake at an early date, as a general policy, the giving of financial assistance, direct or indirect, to industrial exporters. If it should decide to proceed upon that line, I think we would not bring the Prices Commission into the picture as an essential part of the machinery which would have to be operated before a decision could be made. The Prices Commission can only get information as a result of evidence submitted to it, and the information procurable in that particular way is not precisely the type of information necessary for dealing with such matters as the Senator has in mind.

I suggest that the Senator should not press his amendment, but I think it is necessary to bear in mind that it is desirable to keep upon industrialists themselves certain obligations in the matter of their costs, and that the mere suggestion that all their difficulties might be overcome in the internal market by means of tariffs and, in the export market, by means of bounties, is not going to make it easier for them to meet demands from the trade union representatives of their workers or in other ways deal with circumstances which might occasion an increase in their production costs. It is much better that the industrialists of the country should understand that there is a direct obligation on them, from which they are not going to be relieved by Government action, to keep their costs at the minimum in the interest of the consumers in this market as well as for the purpose of reaching that degree of efficiency which would permit of an export business being contemplated. Therefore, even though in very exceptional cases the extension of State assistance to the export trade is not ruled out, it is, I think, very undesirable that the idea should go abroad that any general policy of that kind is likely to be adopted. In fact, I think we have got to move in the other direction and, particularly in relation to those industries which might come within the description "fully established"—the description used in the Trade Agreement—impress upon them the necessity for overhauling their existing costs and effecting whatever reduction is possible without hardship.

I do not want to press the amendment, but I want to explain that I did not suggest anything such as the Minister has envisaged. I made quite clear that there were two types of difference in costs—one for which the manufacturer might be held responsible and the other for which he could not be held responsible. I instanced derating in a competitive country. The manufacturer could not possibly be held responsible for that difference. I tried to make clear that there were two distinct types of difference in connection with this matter. I agree with the Minister in principle, but I believe that there are certain things for which the State is responsible. I am not in favour of giving assistance for anything more than that which is attributable to conditions over which the manufacturer has no control. I do not think that, in the long run, you can build up industries on any other basis. You cannot build them up on high prices or by bringing them up in cotton-wool. If the Minister will carefully read what I said, he will find that I did not suggest what he thinks. The only reason I suggested the Prices Commission in this connection was that it would have a great deal to do with this particular class of work. I thought that they might be able to do this in the course of their work if the Minister had the details given to them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the section, I mislaid my copy of the Bill and did not come across it until last night, when it was late to table an amendment. If I had had an opportunity, I should have moved to delete certain words from line 45. Sub-section (4) reads:

Where a review is being made under this section by the commission in relation to goods of a particular class or kind, and any member of the commission is personally interested in any business selling goods of that class or kind, such member shall inform the Minister of the nature and extent of his interest, and shall not, unless authorised by the Minister so to do, act as a member of the commission for the purposes of such review.

The words I would propose to delete, had I been able to table an amendment, would be, "unless authorised by the Minister so to do". I cannot visualise any circumstances or any contingency which would justify an interested party sitting on the board and acting as an adjudicator in a review of this kind. The Minister may be able to indicate some contingency where that might be tolerated or justified. At the moment I cannot see any reason for the provision.

Sub-section (4) of Section 2 is taken from the Prices Commission Act. The same sub-section appears in the relevant section of that Act. I agree with the Senator that any member of the commission who has an interest in any business selling goods of the class or kind the subject of investigation should not act on the commission when a review in relation to these goods was in progress unless that interest was of such a very slight nature that it could not be held that the member was likely to be biassed or prejudiced in consequence of it. If the interest of the member in the business was only of a very slight nature, I think circumstances might exist which would make it desirable for him to continue to act.

There is a limited personnel in the Prices Commission. The members are chosen because of their special qualities. They are likely to gain, in the course of time, experience which will be very useful to them and which newcomers could not easily acquire. It is obviously desirable that there should not be frequent changes in the personnel of the commission. It is desirable that the same body of people should deal with all the types of investigation, if possible. If we were to adopt the amendment the Senator suggests, we should have to face the possibility of some one member, or perhaps more members, of the commission dropping out in respect of every investigation because of some slight interest in a business dealing with the goods concerned. If the interest is a slight one, I think no danger is involved. If it is not a slight one, then the Minister will not, in prudence, give the consent the sub-section visualises.

I think I can assure the Senator that, so far as I am concerned, that authorisation would not be given in any case in which there was the slightest possibility of a member of the commission being influenced in his judgment by personal considerations. I do not know that any member of the commission would allow himself to be so influenced, but if there is the slightest danger of it, or the slightest possibility of people suspecting that that was the case, the authorisation would not be given. It is only where the interest is a slight one—the fact that some distant relative was engaged in the business, or an individual was a very small shareholder in one concern engaged in one business in which there was a large number of other concerns—that we might allow a person to continue to act because of his personal qualities and experience and the desirability of having them in carrying on the work of the commission. If, however, the interest were any greater, if it were sufficient to lead people to think that he might be influenced by that personal interest, the authorisation should not, and would not, be given.

It is a matter entirely for the Minister. No one questions the good intentions of the present Minister, but he may not be always Minister. We do not know who might follow, and we have no guarantee as to how the term "slight interest" might be interpreted. I do not see that the argument that changes might be necessary if my suggestion were accepted is very convincing. I think it would be quite possible to arrange to have a panel of commissioners who would be called on to act in the event of a vacancy being created by some such contingency. I have not moved an amendment, and I have no opportunity of doing so, and, therefore, I cannot press this, but I think it is very unwise to have a loophole of this kind in a matter which is going vitally to affect trade between two countries. It opens a loophole from which very great abuses might emerge, and I do not think it is a desirable phrase to have.

There is, of course, no provision in the Bill for a panel, but there is power to add additional members for the purpose of any investigation, under Section 10 of the Control of Prices Act.

Article 8 says that representatives of British manufacturers will be given an opportunity of appearing before the Prices Commission at any of these examinations in which their firms are interested. The Prices Commission has certain powers under the Control of Prices Act in dealing with these inquiries. A series of powers is given to them under Section 17 of the Control of Prices Act, which says that the Commission inquiring under this Act will be given power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to examine them on oath, and to compel them to produce documents. It provides certain powers such as are vested in the High Court for the punishing of people who either do not attend when summoned or, being present, refuse to take an oath or to produce any documents. I should like the Minister to say whether it is the intention that these powers will apply to all persons appearing before the Prices Commission, whether they represent English firms or Irish firms. I take it that persons on behalf of English manufacturers who would be appearing before the Prices Commission at inquiries such as these would be either Irish people representing them here or people resident here.

I take it that these powers do not extend to any person residing outside the jurisdiction, but I am not clear that they would even be necessary. Clearly, in the case of a tariff review undertaken on the suggestion of the British Government, in which British manufacturing or exporting firms were interested, if the representatives of these manufacturers or exporters came before the Prices Commission the extent to which they are going to impress the Commission will depend upon their readiness to produce whatever information and data the Commission may require. If they were to refuse to supply that information, or to act in such a way as to create doubts as to the truth of their statements, the validity of their position or their own bona fides, the Commission would refuse to hear them or would place no credence in what they said. The power to compel the production of witnesses and documents would apply only in respect of our own nationals, but there is another power —not a legal power, but a power equally effective—to procure a similar service from outsiders coming in the form of plaintiffs before the Commission.

Does the Minister anticipate that in asking for an investigation of the commodities of any particular industry, the British Government, in forwarding the application, would forward a case prepared by the British manufacturers?

I do not think so. We have had no experience as to how this is going to operate. We undertook that we would have this review of tariffs carried out by the Prices Commission and we undertook to allow British manufacturers to appear before the commission and to give evidence in respect of any investigation in which they were interested. I do not think that was a very great concession on our part because the Prices Commission, in doing its work, would obviously seek to get all the information it could and would require such information in order to produce a valuable report. It was then suggested that the review should be undertaken first in respect of those classes of goods for which the British Government desires early consideration. We accepted that because we thought it would prove a convenience to ourselves. If the British manufacturers had to come direct here, a large number of them would come at once and we would have the difficult, and perhaps invidious, task of choosing the firms which should have priority. We thought it much better if the British Government would, in the first instance, put them, as it were, in a queue, and ask us to deal with particular items. I did not understand, nor do I contemplate, that the British Government will itself prepare a case for the modification of a duty or the removal of some import restriction. What, in fact, will happen is that the Prices Commission will commence a review of the position and, in pursuance of that review, will get the evidence of British manufacturers as well as that of home producers and others interested, and will then report whether, having regard to the principle enshrined in Article 8 of the Agreement, any alteration of the duty should be effected.

I understand that the Agreement provides only that the British manufacturers should have a right of audience. To my mind, that is quite a different thing from giving them the right to send counsel and to produce a case as in a court which, I think, would be highly undesirable. It would be undesirable for various reasons. It would be a minimum of assistance to the commission and liable also to put Irish manufacturers to expense if they were, as I see it, foolish enough to think of doing the same. The secretary of one group of manufacturers, of which I am not a member, told me that one investigation before the Tariff Commission cost that group £3,000. It seems hard to believe that, but he is a perfectly reputable person. If you are going to have this as a court of law, in which British manufacturers will be represented by counsel—and it is well known that the Federation of British Manufacturers is a very wealthy body—I think you will defeat your purpose. I assume that nothing of the kind was promised or intended.

The Senator is aware that the Prices Commission, as such, have refused to hear counsel. Their attitude was quite reasonable. They did not want to appear before them somebody who knew less about the business than themselves and who was merely speaking from a brief. They wanted people to give information so that they could cross-examine them and get the information in the form in which they wanted it. I was pressed in the Dáil to urge on the Commission that they should allow counsel to appear in respect of these tariff applications, but I replied, as I must reply now, that it is a matter for the Commission themselves. They are entitled by statute to determine their procedure and I propose to leave that position unchanged.

There is one point I want the Minister to make clear. Is the British manufacturer coming over to make his case before the Prices Commission in a better position than the Irish manufacturer who may have to apply? In other words, must the Irish manufacturer produce books, documents and witnesses, give evidence on oath and be sent to jail, if necessary, while the Britisher will get off and have no responsibility of that type?

Any person summoned by the Prices Commission to give evidence and refusing to give evidence, or summoned to produce documents and refusing to produce those documents, would be liable to the penalties which the principal Act prescribes. A British manufacturer could, of course, refuse to come or could refuse to give evidence. We are not compelling them to do so. We give the right of audience before the Commission if they choose to exercise it. But the Prices Commission will be endeavouring to get whatever information they can so as to enable them to discharge their functions. If they can get that information they will have it and act on it. If they get information from the Irish manufacturer only then it is on the basis of that information they will make their recommendation or report.

This Bill enacts the giving of power to the British manufacturer which the Irish manufacturer has not. The Irish manufacturer may not refuse to give evidence. The British manufacturer, say of paper, may refuse to give evidence; he may come in but he may refuse to be sworn. He may refuse to produce his accounts and he cannot be punished as the Irish manufacturer— say the Clondalkin Paper Mills—can be punished. The Minister, I am afraid, has not made the position clear.

But the British manufacturer who with that intention came to the Prices Commission to get them to recommend the reduction in the duty of his goods would be acting foolishly.

The Minister, I am afraid, is thinking of the effect of such. I am thinking of the equity. I think both manufacturers, Irish and British, should come in on an equal status. When I say both manufacturers I mean the representatives of both manufacturers. As the matter has been raised, may I say that I think the Minister has been unduly indiscreet in his reference to the matter of representation of persons before the Prices Commission by counsel. I happen to be nominated on the Seanad by the General Council of the Bar of Ireland and I want to take this opportunity of objecting to his remark. The Minister said counsel would be speaking from a brief and they want someone who knows more about it. I think the same could be said about the police court and other courts. The criminal knows much more about the crime than does the counsel. The police know much more about it than counsel who prosecutes. The reference by the Minister was rather facetious and casual. In making that remark he was not judicious and I want to make a protest here and now.

I had no intention of saying anything which in the words of Fluther Good would be derogatory to the Senator's profession. The Prices Commission are there to get facts. It will have nothing to do with the law.

Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

New section. Before Section 3, to insert a new section as follows:—

3. The power contained in Section 1 of the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932 (No. 16 of 1932) to vary by order of the Executive Council any Customs Duty in force shall not apply in the case of the variation of any Customs Duty which is recommended by the Commission in a report under the foregoing section.

Briefly, the effect of the amendment, if passed, would be that where the Prices Commission recommended a variation in the tariff of any particular article or class of goods that variation would take place through means of legislation being presented to the Oireachtas. At the present time there is power in the Executive Council to issue an order under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, and the variation would take place forthwith. I do not know whether it would ever come before the Seanad. When the Act was passed it contemplated only the Dáil. Even before the Dáil that order would not necessarily come for discussion inside a period of four, five or six months. The limit would be eight months. Now the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act was passed under certain circumstances. When introducing the Bill on the 14th July, 1932—column 1004, Volume 43 of Dáil Debates—the Minister for Finance said:—

"The powers which we are seeking are wide; they are sweeping. I do not want to disguise that fact either from the Oireachtas or from the people of the country."

Earlier in the debate when introducing the measure, the Minister for Finance said:—

"First of all, this measure is not introduced in a spirit of retaliation or aggression. It is brought in primarily as a measure of self-defence."

That is, the Minister says, a measure of self-defence. It is to defend the Irish manufacturer against penal duties. In column 1187, Volume 43, of Dáil Debates the Minister said:—

"The purpose of this Bill is not to wage economic war upon them, not to destroy England's industry, but to safeguard our own people against hunger and want, to open up new markets for our goods if the British market is closed to us...."

In the circumstances in which the Minister for Finance found himself compelled to speak in these terms power was given by Executive Council Order to impose tariffs. The order did not come before the Dáil for a period of eight months. I am suggesting that we are now reversing the process that has been gone through. At any rate, I would like to say that while the Emergency Imposition of Duty Act was being passed to deal with an emergency, it has now become the natural machinery for use by the Executive Council for imposing customs duties. It is the normal thing now; once when it was proposed to put duty on an article legislation was introduced. The normal thing is to make the order, and when a number of these orders have been collected together they are put into a Bill which is passed through the House. I do not question the advisability of continuing that. It would be advisable perhaps that the powers might now be regarded as emergency powers and the Act might be dropped. I do not go so far as that; but under this Agreement in order to give the British manufacturer a chance of competing on fair terms here, the tariffs are now being lowered.

The Irish manufacturer thinks that the weapon that was formed to protect him in different circumstances should not now be used to remove whatever protection has been given to him. That protection gave him satisfaction, and having the operation of that tariff discussed by the Oireachtas before the duty was produced gave him some protection. Attention was called in the debate that went on here yesterday to the difference in the phraseology in the section dealing with this part of the Agreement. There is a difference between our present Agreement and the Agreements with Canada and the Dominions. There was a definite reference to that matter. Where these duties are being varied under the present circumstances I think it would ease the position if the Minister did not take powers by order to vary them. If legislation were necessary there would be the Oireachtas with which to deal.

Senator Mulcahy said that he did not propose now to discuss the operations of the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932. Neither do I. Experience has shown that the particular method of dealing with new customs impositions for which that Act provides has proved more suitable in practice than the method which preceded it. However, I do not know that every Senator would agree with that point of view. The old arrangements under which all changes in customs were brought into operation at the time of the Budget and implemented in the Finance Act would not prove satisfactory at all, in the circumstances of the past few years, apart altogether from the dispute with Great Britain. These years were years of industrial development and many new projects were brought in most of which involved changes in the customs tariffs. In the circumstances of this country, which is a small country, everybody knows what is happening and it is not possible to prevent information leaking out amongst the business community. If duty on an article had been sanctioned by the Government and if that leaked out there was the danger of forestalling the tariff by imports of goods which might be very heavy and which might very well nullify or destroy the immediate possibility of getting an industry under way. For that reason I think there should be power to deal expeditiously and at various times with the imposition of customs duties. The name of this Act may no longer be applicable to the present circumstances. The machinery has proved workable and the consensus of opinion would favour maintaining it. That however is a very different question from that to which the Senator's amendment is directed.

I agree that in the ordinary course the recommendations of the Prices Commission should be discussed in the Dáil, and that the motion to give effect to the recommendation should be brought before the Dáil for that purpose. I agree, because in a number of cases, at any rate, the recommendation of the Prices Commission would involve, not an increase, but a reduction in the existing duties and, because of that fact, urgency would not arise. In fact, when reducing a duty it is always necessary to give some notice to interested parties so that stocks may be cleared, orders cancelled and other arrangements made to avoid loss. There may, however, be some cases in which the recommendation of the Prices Commission would involve an increase in duties, such as when a customs duty is being substituted for import restrictions. Certain of these recommendations may then involve an increase in the customs duties. It may be necessary to move fairly quickly in such matters because, of course, fairly considerable publicity will be given to the proceedings before the Prices Commission and people will be withholding orders or delaying purchasing or in other ways anticipating the position resulting from the recommendation of the Prices Commission. The Dáil may not be meeting or, for some other reason, it may not be possible to act speedily otherwise than by using the powers in the Act.

The same would apply in the case of possible reductions of duty during periods of the year in which the Dáil would not be meeting. If everybody knew that a reduction was coming but that the reduction could not be effected for quite a protracted period until the Dáil had assembled, there might be considerable trade dislocation. It might be desirable to prevent that arising by acting on the recommendation of the Prices Commission. In the circumstances it is desirable that we should retain, in relation to the recommendation of the Prices Commission, the powers of this Act so long as the powers of this Act exist at all. I think it is unlikely that it will be repealed but that is a matter of policy which may arise in another connection. So long as these powers are there at all, we should have authority to utilise them in respect of a Prices Commission recommendation. In the ordinary course there will be plenty of time to proceed by the slower procedure—by way of a Money Resolution followed by a Finance Bill.

Do I understand the Minister to say that he is going to make the fullest use of the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act powers in dealing with these changes?

We propose to use them where expeditious action is required, but, in the ordinary course, where the Prices Commission recommend a modification of a particular duty, I think it would be desirable to proceed by the slower method so that the public would have adequate notice of what was coming.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 3, 4, and the Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.