Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1968

Vol. 64 No. 11

Imposition of Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Colley)

The object of this Bill is to provide legislation to safeguard both our manufacturing and agricultural industries against injury, or even destruction, by dumped or subsidised imports from other countries.

It is not the object of the Bill to provide further protection for Irish producers, as the word protection is ordinarily used. To counteract dumping is the more important object of the Bill, since the danger from subsidisation is more remote.

Neither dumping nor subsidisation may be wrong in itself, but may justly be objected to when it injures a manufacturing or agricultural industry by infiltration into the home market. The home market may also be threatened by fair competition or by imports from low cost countries. From the point of view of the Irish producer it is all the same whether he loses his market because of fair competition, low cost imports, dumping or subsidisation, and for this reason producers are apt to complain of dumping when they find that imported goods of the kind they produce themselves are being offered at prices which are lower than their own. Most of the complaints of dumping which my Department has received in recent years have been of this kind, and investigation has shown that the charge of dumping could not be substantiated.

There has been little danger of dumping, so far, in this country, because of the high tariff protection. The exporter of dumped goods has to lower his prices so as to absorb these tariffs and, for this reason, dumping in Ireland is not in general an attractive proposition. If, however, prices of Irish goods are unnecessarily inflated to take advantage of the tariff protection, the producers concerned run the risk of losing the home market, either through fair competition or through dumping. Apart from this, as our tariff protection is reduced because of international agreements, the danger of dumping will increase and so, in order to make provision for the years ahead, it is necessary now to introduce effective, flexible and acceptable anti-dumping legislation. The powers which the Government already have under the Imposition of Duties Acts can be and have been used to counter dumping. These Acts, however, were designed to facilitate the imposition of protective tariffs and are not ideally suitable as anti-dumping measures. Duties imposed under these Acts do not bear on their face any indication that they are anti-dumping duties. The Acts, moreover, are not sufficiently flexible and were not designed to conform with the accepted methods of dealing with dumping or subsidisation.

It is internationally agreed that countries are entitled to take action against dumping or subsidisation and there is also a fair measure of agreement about the kind of action which may be taken. Of particular concern to this country are the principles contained in Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT, and the agreement circulated in June, 1967 on its implementation. Member States may sign this agreement if they wish to do so. A number of them, including Britain, has already done so and it is probable that Ireland will also wish to sign it. This anti-dumping code of the GATT is of importance to us, first of all, because we have now acceded to the GATT and, secondly, because it is provided in the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain that both countries will observe Article VI in their anti-dumping measures.

Dumping may take place for different reasons. A manufacturer may overproduce and find himself with large stocks. He does not wish to tie up his capital in holding these and so he has to sell them, even at a loss. He cannot afford to damage his home market by unloading the goods there and for this reason he dumps them in another country. A manufacturer may also dump for the purpose of destroying an industry in another country, by taking away its market. He calculates that he will then have the market to himself and can recoup himself by stepping up his prices. Dumping may also be motivated by political purposes. A country may not be able to attack industry in another country by direct dumping, because the country is protected by anti-dumping legislation, but it may be able to attack that country's markets in third countries. The kind of dumping most difficult to counter is sporadic dumping, the sudden unforeseeable and massive importation of goods at dumped prices. The peculiar difficulty of dealing with this kind of dumping is that the damage has been done before action can be taken.

The fact of dumping is determined by setting the prices at which goods are offered for sale in the exporting country, at any point in the chain of distribution between factory and consumer, against the comparable prices at which these or similar goods are offered, at the same point, for importation into the importing country. The prices at which local producers offer their goods for sale are not relevant to the question of dumping. Accordingly, in the Bill two prices are defined, the fair market price, in section 3, which is, in effect, the home market price in the exporting country and the export price, in section 2, which is in effect the comparable price at which the goods are offered for export to this country. If the fair market price is greater than the export price then there is dumping, and the difference between the two prices is the margin of dumping.

The Bill provides for the setting up of a commission whose members will be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. This commission will investigate all complaints of dumping and will make a report to the appropriate Minister. It will be the task of the commission to establish whether there has been dumping and, if there has been, to ascertain the fair market price and export price and, then, the margin of dumping. The commission will also investigate whether any dumping which has taken place has caused material injury to an Irish industry and this aspect of the dumping will be considered at the same time as the dumping itself. It is not enough that there should have been dumping. It must also be established that this dumping was injurious. This is a very important principle in the GATT code on anti-dumping legislation.

What I have just said needs some modification with respect to third country dumping. It is in accordance with the GATT code that anti-dumping measures may be applied if dumping attacks the market of another country in this country, even though it does not injure a domestic industry. Provision is made for this in section 14.

It is only in the case of certain evidence to be provided by the Revenue Commissioners that the commission will have power to require the production of evidence. In general there is no compulsion on any person or firm to give evidence to the commission or to appear before it. This also is in accordance with the international code. At the same time, the decision as to the fair market price and the export price will be made by the commission, though provision is made for an appeal to the Minister.

A distinctive feature of the commission is that it will have power to effect the refund of any duty which has been paid in excess of the margin of dumping. Governments and Ministers of State are liable to be suspected abroad of using anti-dumping legislation for the purpose of concealed protection. It is desirable, therefore, that the Government's intention, which is also a principle of the international code, that anti-dumping duties in any particular case should not exceed the margin of dumping, will be carried out by an independent body.

Power is also provided whereby the appropriate Minister may impose provisional duties on the recommendation of the commission. These duties are provisional in the sense that they have later to be confirmed by the Government. If they are not confirmed, any duties collected will have to be refunded. The purpose of these provisional duties is to guard the market while the commission is carrying out its investigation into a complaint of dumping, and such duties would not be recommended by the commission nor imposed by the Minister unless this action was considered necessary.

Power is also provided whereby the Government can impose anti-dumping duties, which will be effective from the date of their imposition, or can confirm provisional duties, so that such duties will, in effect, be retroactive to the date of the imposition of the provisional duties.

All duties imposed under the Bill will be duties of customs and will be administered by the Revenue Commissioners.

Another important feature of the commission is that its deliberations will be carried out in private and that information given to it will be treated as confidential, if those who give the information so desire. This provision, which is contrary to the practice in some countries, is designed to protect the interests of those who have to meet an allegation of dumping, and to encourage them to lay all the facts before the commission.

It will be noted that there is special provision in the Bill, section 17, to safeguard the Glass Bottle industry against dumping. The reason for this is that this industry is peculiarly exposed to the danger of being very greatly injured or destroyed by sporadic dumping. A single consignment of goods could cause the industry to close down its furnaces and this in turn might force the one firm engaged in the industry into liquidation. It is not the intention that the safeguards provided in this section, for this one industry, will be extended to any other industry.

The duties which are imposed for the purposes of counteracting the effects of subsidies given in other countries are known as countervailing duties, and these duties will be imposed by the Government. It will not be part of the function of the commission to make recommendations in respect of countervailing duties or to examine matters relating to subsidisation as these are more appropriate to the Government.

The Minister, however, will be able to consult the commission. It should be noted that anti-dumping and countervailing duties are not additive, so that if an anti-dumping duty is imposed to counter dumping, the same element of dumping may not, at the same time, be countered by a countervailing duty, even though the dumping is the result of subsidisation. There are provisions, also, parallel to those for anti-dumping duties, for the refund of countervailing duties to the extent that these exceed the amount of the subsidy.

The Bill also provides for the imposition by the Government of a retroactive levy. This levy, which is not a customs duty, may be imposed only on goods to which a provisional duty applies, but may be charged on any such goods which were imported during a period of 90 days before the date on which the provisional duty was imposed. The purpose of this provision, which is in accordance with the international code which was circulated in June, 1967, is to deal with sporadic dumping, and certain conditions have to be fulfilled before the Government can impose such a levy. Senators will, I think, agree that this rather severe provision should be an effective deterrent against the kind of dumping which is most likely to endanger an Irish industry, and most difficult to prevent.

The Bill also provides for penalties for giving false information, for the making of regulations by the Minister and for the power of the Revenue Commissioners to require information. These and other provisions of the Bill require no comment at this stage.

I hope that Senators will agree that this Bill framed as it is in accordance with the most up-to-date thinking upon the matters with which it deals, will provide us with a satisfactory means of countering injurious dumping and subsidisation.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I should like to welcome the Bill first of all and then to say that that welcome might be shared in industry now in waiting for it for a long time. It is one of the disturbing features of our preparation for the freedom of trade that in so many cases, although the need for action was pinpointed at an early stage, action has been taken only after a long period. While this may in part be explicable by the need for consultation, as, for example, in the case of the long delay with the introduction of facilities for training, in other cases consultations with industry and trade unions are not the explanation, and one must be concerned that it has taken so long for such legislation, including this legislation, to come before the House.

As was pointed out by the NIEC in its 1966 industrial review, the need for anti-dumping legislation was pinpointed in 17 of 22 CIO reports summarised in Miss Brock's summary report or synthesis. It was pointed out in that synthesis, summarising what had been said in these reports produced from the end of 1961 onwards, that the small size of Irish industry, and, therefore, of firms within it, makes it very vulnerable to dumping, and this matter of considerable vigilance and speedy action by the Government would seem the only way of mitigating the severity of the problem.

The matter was referred to again in the first review on industrial progress of the NIEC in the spring of 1965 when it was said that in many industries they were anxious to have adequate protection against dumping and low-cost imports.

In the final report of the CIO the matter was dealt with at some length.

The real need for anti-dumping legislation was referred to and again pressure was put on the Government to do something about it in the spring of 1965.

In the NIEC report on the Free Trade Area Agreement, which was published in February, 1966, the matter was again taken up because of the fresh urgency given to it by the introduction of this Free Trade Area Agreement. It was pointed out that in virtually all discussions held with industry in regard to the Second Programme, the importance of effective protection against dumping was emphasised. This emphasis is understandable because the small size of the Irish market renders it particutarly vulnerable to dumping from highly industrialised countries. These proposals were put forward shortly after the First Industrial Review, three to four years ago. In the 1965 Review of Industrial Progress by the NIEC the matter was again mentioned. This was published in the spring of 1966, two years ago. In the 1966 Review of Industrial Progress, the refrain was taken up again.

It is not a very satisfactory picture and no adequate explanation has been given as to why it took four years to introduce this legislation. Fortunately, no serious damage has been done and where problems have arisen it has been possible to deal with them. However, I do not think that is an excuse for this kind of dilatoriness. When the urgency was pointed out, action should have been taken very quickly, much more quickly than in fact happened.

The need for this legislation has been explained by the Minister. That until now we have not needed anti-dumping legislation has been due to the fact that our tariffs have been at a high level, very much higher than was needed to protect adequately our industries. We have had a degree of protection so great as to protect our industries not only against the normal problems of unfair imports but against unfair competition as well. Of course, the need in Ireland is likely to be greater because of the overspill of advertising in Britain—the fact that many British manufacturers, in press advertisements in British magazines and newspapers and on Independent Television, are inadvertently and without any cost to themselves, apart from what it takes them to advertise their goods on the British market, reaping the very rich benefit of having their advertisements seen here. In that way they are getting a free bonus—it does not cost them a pound—and they are already making an effective impact on this country's market as a by-product of their advertising campaigns in Britain. This puts them in a very favourable—I do not use the word "unfair"—position vis-á-vis Irish manufacturers.

Then there is the diminutive size of the Irish market beside the British one. We are peripheral to Europe and there is a tendency to dump goods in peripheral markets from which they are not liable to leak back again to the main market. Again, this is an important consideration, the significance of which I do not think is appreciated in the European Economic Community. There is the fact that we are separated from all neighbouring markets by a sea channel and not a land frontier. As I have said, the significance of this is not appreciated fully.

I have visited the Community in Brussels on several occasions since 1961 and I have taken every possible opportunity to raise this question of dumping and its significance to Ireland because the Community's legislation, the Treaty of Rome and its provisions, are inadequate in this respect. The countries in the Community are joined together in a land mass with contiguous frontiers and if a German firm dumped goods into France, from Baden Baden to Strasbourg, the dumping would not be altogether into a separate market because the dumped goods could be so easily dumped back that the German manufacturer could be undercut by his own goods being dumped back. We do not have the same situation with a sea channel. An English manufacturer selling goods in England, dishwashers for instance, at £100 could sell these at £80, after dumping, in Ireland, pay £10 transport to have them dumped here and nobody in Ireland could afford to send them back to undercut that manufacturer in his own market because with the £10 transport charge it would not be possible to do so economically. Therefore, the remedy of anti-dumping legislation is much less likely to be available in conditions of an area cut off by a sea channel than in countries separated only by a land frontier. This distinction has not been appreciated and the fact is that EEC countries have, therefore, not seen the need for anti-dumping protection which we feel so acutely.

I should like to press on the Minister the need to explore this matter further with the EEC. The Minister should tell us what progress has been made in talks on this matter. There were talks of a preliminary character in 1962 and since then there have been exploratory discussions, not dignified with the name of negotiations, dealing with the kind of problems to be met. I should like the Minister to tell us what reaction he has found in Brussels to the Irish situation on this subject because it is a matter which the Irish Government would naturally press with the Community.

The reactions I have found have on the whole been understanding up to a point, without showing, however, any full appreciation of the problem. There is a tendency for them to say: "We do not have any problems in this respect, why should you?" There is a tendency to adopt a doctrinaire attitude because a common market, it is said, cannot have trouble of that kind—this doctrinaire attitude which fails to recognise the fact that they are together within what is by law a common market but which is, in fact, a series of separate markets for the purpose of competition. I am not happy that I have made the desired impact on the countries concerned and I ask the Minister to keep up the pressure. I ask him also to tell us if he has detected any willingness in this respect.

One answer would be to seek a solution, not within the framework of anti-dumping legislation because of the doctrinaire attitude I have described, but under the terms of Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome which deals with the dominant position. For instance, if a German or French or English firm were dumping goods on the Irish market with the effect inadvertent or deliberate, of damaging Irish firms through unfair competition, this would represent an abuse of a dominant position, which is more or less the terminology of Article 86. I wonder whether the Minister is speaking in terms of a solution within the framework of Article 86 and, if so, if it can be sufficiently speedy against the damage which may be done by dumping in putting firms here out of business. If the answer is not Article 86, how then can the problem best be tackled? It may be necessary to consider a special protocol on this matter. Just as the accepting members of EEC not only subscribe to the Articles of the Treaty but add protocols to meet their special problems, I believe we would be entitled to seek a protocol where we have a special problem requiring special treatment. Perhaps the answer may lie there.

In any such negotiations, it would be important that we should show not only our genuine desire to protect ourselves against dumping but that we are not seeking to re-introduce protection in another form. The solution in this Bill on the question of refunding duties seems to me to be along the lines on which we could perhaps talk to EEC because if, in any arrangement we had about dumping with the Community, it was established in any instance by the commission substantially, rather than by us—because the power would rest with the commission—that dumping had not occurred and a special emergency procedure we would seek had been applied in error, then we would be prepared to refund the losses. I would be prepared to agree to compensating any firm for any losses of profits they have incurred. It would be no harm for us to show we are absolutely genuine on this and that this is not an attempt by the back door to re-introduce protection.

Our only concern is genuine cases of dumping. We do not wish to damage any firm that is not dumping. We want quick emergency action to prevent serious damage to our industries and, if it is done in error, we should be prepared to bear the full consequences by ensuring that any firm would not be put at a disadvantage by our action. If we are prepared to go that far to show how genuine we are, suspicions might be alleviated and our chances of securing a special provision under either Article 86 or a special protocol would be enhanced.

I press the Minister to tell us about discussions to date with the EEC and how he sees them evolving. There is a genuine fear at this stage in this country. Many of the fears of Irish people are exaggerated about the EEC, and will be shown to be so when we become members, but they are not all exaggerated. People here remember cases of dumping in the past which had serious effects on Irish industry. They fear that, if we join the Common Market and we have no effective provision against dumping, serious damage could be done to this country. This is a very important issue, an issue to which this Bill offers no answer at all.

I have been concerned that the Government, in one or two instances, have brought forward measures to deal with current industrial problems without making it clear that these are only temporary measures pending our entry to the EEC. This Bill is one example. The other serious one is the arrangement with regard to the motor assembly industry with Great Britain. It modifies the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement in such a way as to protect our motor assembly industry from being wiped out by British competition under this Agreement. The Government are to be commended on negotiating this Agreement and on preserving, for the time being, the motor assembly industry here by an ingenious solution to this problem. In all the pronouncements and preliminary leaks that occurred, nothing was said to the effect that it was a purely temporary solution to the problem.

There were headlines in the papers, which must have come from some inspired source, saying that the motor assembly industry would be saved for 25 years. Unless that represented the Government's expectation of how long it would take us to get into the EEC, it was misleading and, if it was misleading, then the Government should come clean. The statement was never contradicted. From the manner in which it appeared, the timing and the fact that it appeared in a number of papers simultaneously, quite evidently it came from an informed source. In all that, nothing was said about the temporary character of these measures. At no stage did the Minister warn, as he should have warned, that the motor assembly industry got a reprieve until we joined the EEC and that the Agreement he signed is quite obviously illegal under the terms of the Rome Treaty and would cease to be operative when we joined the EEC.

It is wrong that the people should be lulled into a belief of security for a period of 25 years when, in fact, all that has happened is a temporary and useful reprieve. I congratulate the Government on negotiating it but not on the way the information was leaked out, the timing and manner of the inspired comments associated with it, the failure to clarify the position and the fact that the workers in the industry have been misled by the Government as to their prospects.

Similarly here, this Bill is extremely useful and urgent. It will help to preserve Irish industry against unfair competition and dumping from Britain during the period of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement until we join the EEC, when this Bill becomes a dead letter. It has no value or importance as far as the EEC is concerned. It can continue to be used against dumping but, if Britain and ourselves are in the EEC, then, so far as Western Europe is concerned, the Bill will be ineffective. It is surprising that the Minister did not find it appropriate to make that point.

We are supposed to be preparing for EEC membership. All kinds of generalities are spoken about the need to prepare and not to be complacent. With the motor vehicle agreement, or this Bill, further encouragement to complacency is given by the failure to say that this or the other particular measure has no relevance to the EEC and will offer no answer to the problems arising under EEC conditions. As the Government have not seen fit to do so, it is appropriate, therefore, that the real position should be made clear from the Opposition benches and that this encouragement to complacency should not be allowed.

Coming more closely to the Bill, a number of queries come to mind. I should like to ask the Minister to tell us generally something about how this compares with the United Kingdom Act of 1957 in relation to dumping. I have merely glanced at the British Act. I note dissimilarities in the construction of the Act, in the order in which things are dealt with and in the manner of approach. My first impression—which I might not stand over if I had time to examine it closely— is that our Bill represents improvements on the British Act. That statement would require more careful study before it could be validated. Have we, as I suspect, approached this problem somewhat differently from the British and, if so, why? Am I right in thinking that, by so doing, we may have produced a more satisfactory answer? I should like the Minister to say also how this Bill, in its present form, compares with the proposals put to him by the Federation of Irish Industries. The Federation as long as four years ago, as we have been told by the NIEC, put forward proposals of a detailed character after having carefully considered legislation in other countries, including particularly Canada. These proposals were worked out very fully and I would like to know to what extent they were found useful in the preparation of this Bill and to what extent the Bill conforms to these proposals.

I would also like to ask the Minister to say a little about the speed with which the Government will be able to act under this Bill. There is this system of provisional duties, but they can only be applied when something is under consideration by the commission and it must make a recommendation to the Government which must then take action of the kind which is envisaged. It is vital that where goods are dumped and come into this country and are in the docks immediate and urgent action should be taken to hold up what could lead to a disastrous position. We must be clear that for certain products a slight error in the calculations of the British producers leading to an over production of three per cent in a particular year would yield a surplus which if dumped in Ireland would be equal to the whole production of the Irish industry for a year and could totally wipe out the Irish industry. In many cases one boatload or even a part load will be enough to do the job. There is no use shutting this stable door after the horse is gone. This is one of the points made in the recommendations of the NIEC. I am not so happy that the procedure provided in this Bill which involves a complaint and the making of an inquiry, with four stages altogether. I am not happy that this could give speedy enough action to ensure that if a cargo of goods were dumped in this way, before it could leave the docks and get through customs it could be dealt with by this procedure. I should like the Minister to tell us something about that, because this is a very sensitive point as far as Irish industry is concerned, and the NIEC were right to stress its significance.

As regards particular points, I shall run through them quickly as I go because I want to leave time for others to contribute to the debate and also to give the Minister time to reply. In section 1 dealing with definitions the third word defined is "country" which is said to include "territory, area and place". This is an extraordinarily wide definition of a country. One wonders what is intended by it. I would see no particular difficulty about including "territory" because you can get some place like Hong Kong which is just a dependent territory of the British Commonwealth or Empire or whatever its appropriate name is now. Although this dependent territory has its own form of subordinate government it is easily identified as a place of origin for goods and, therefore, it should be included in territory, but "country" is simply not a sovereign state, and "area" and "place" are not sovereign. A place can be anywhere, any particular town or port. I would have thought that you should have country or territory of some kind defined as having some kind of status and identity for purposes of international trade, not just somewhere within any country. I wonder what is the purpose of "area" and "place" and why they have been introduced into the definition.

Indeed, the Minister is defined in section 1 in a rather odd way, as being the Minister for Industry and Commerce except when he is the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. This procedure of bringing in the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is further developed to a point of utter absurdity in section 4 subsections (2) and (3) where it transpires that the commission shall consist of three people appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and two by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, but that when a particular topic is being discussed this Box and Cox effort is indicated of them changing status so that one of the agricultural people becomes chairman, instead of appointing as chairman a nominee of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If the civil servants want to play games of that kind between Departments it is their own affair, but they should do it in the privacy of their offices. That they should do it in a public Bill is offensive. It introduces a most clumsy mechanism into the Bill and it shows up an attitude of mind which we must deplore. This human feeling we know exists, but to put it in a Bill wastes everybody's time, with this complicated provision to ensure that when something is being discussed which happens to be for some reason under the auspices of the Minister for Agriculture the representative of the Department of Agriculture sits in the chair and the representative of the Department of Industry and Commerce sits under him. This is nonsense. The Minister quite frankly should have refused to submit to this practice from the Department of Agriculture, which was founded 25 years before this State was established; and there is a lot of evidence that it is still reluctant to recognise that there is a State superior to it. It seems to think it is a separate and superior State. This is a performance we should not allow them to get away with, and I am surprised that the Minister allowed this to be put down. It seems to me to be an entirely improper procedure. This commission should have a chairman, and after he is appointed by some defined procedure he should sit in the chair and run the meetings regardless of what the topic is for discussion, and not be pushed out by somebody from the Department of Agriculture just because the produce is flour instead of textiles.

Mr. O'Quigley

Do not forget that the Minister for Agriculture likes being chairman of the National Agricultural Committee and things like that.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

This goes back a long way, even before the present Minister for Agriculture. It goes back to 1890 before the Minister for Agriculture was born.

The next point I want to make is in relation to section 1, line 5 at the top of page 3. The word "produced" here is defined as including "grown and manufactured" and the Bill says that "cognate words shall be construed accordingly". I am unhappy about the word "produced". Any international trade, and, indeed, any economic consideration of industrial production is not simply a single process. Everything we buy that is manufactured has gone through many different processes in different places. Value has been added in different countries at different times, getting materials, processing them, assembling them, putting them in final form, painting them perhaps, and all these processes can be carried out in different places at different times, so that you cannot say that an article is the produce of a particular country. Value is added, and this is recognised in the whole system of certificates of origin in free trade areas, where in order that it might be considered that a thing is substantially produced in a country a certain percentage of the value has to be added or a certain number of processes carried out in that country. Therefore, to use the word "produced" as being equal to the word "produce" of any one country instead of being put through all these various processes is a bit misleading, and it is dangerous. One would have to go right through the Bill to see whether the word is used so as to be dangerous.

I may say that I am raising these points now, and going into some detail, instead of waiting for Committee Stage so that the Minister can reply, and thus enable us to see whether we should put down amendments on Committee Stage. If the Minister is able to answer these points satisfactorily perhaps we will not need to put down amendments.

With regard to section 2, the last two lines of subsection (1), I know why they are there; they are there because somebody put them into the British Act, or words almost identical, on page 76 of the relevant 1957 statute in England. But that does not explain what they mean. I have tried to think of any possible reason for these words being put in in our circumstances, but I cannot visualise any reason for including them and I have been unable to make sense out of them.

Mr. Colley

Could I have the reference, please?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The last two lines of section 2 (1):

except so far as any such costs, charges or expenses are required to be met separately by the buyer.

Mr. Colley

I will explain that.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Then I shall not labour it any further if the Minister has a good explanation. I should like a little explanation of section 3 (3) as I could not quite understand the purpose of this. I am sure it has some good purpose which the Minister can explain.

Section 4 (1) has been amended in the Dáil. I would like to take issue with the Minister on this amendment. The Minister is a much better scholar of the Irish language than I am and, therefore, I am slow to join issue with him on this subject but the form we had here seemed to me to be a reasonably respectable form that you could stand over and that did not make nonsense of the thing but now it has been changed to this incredible phrase "An Coimisiún Dumpála". I really must protest. The reason given by the Minister for this terrible word is, in fact, a reason for not using it. He said he discovered after having introduced this phrase here that in many countries the word "dumping" has an international usage and it is used, for instance, by Scandinavian countries, just taken from the English. Therefore, I should think that the thing to do would be to call it "An Coimisiún Dumping" but it becomes "An Coimisiún Dumpála". The logic of this appals me. It is a "dumpáling" proposal.

Mr. Colley

The structure of other languages is, of course, somewhat different from Irish.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

That is true no doubt but the fact remains that they did not take the word dumping and give it a Danish or a Scandinavian ending. They took the word "dumping" from English and used it and the same procedure should operate here rather than to invent Irish words of this kind because the ending "ála" used in this country is one which is a subject of considerable jocosity and it does not do the Irish language any good because it sounds so odd it makes people poke fun at the language in a way that is inappropriate. I do not think the Minister should lend himself to this procedure. He should leave it "An Coimisiún um Mí-allmhairiú" or call it "An Coimisiún Dumping" or —and this seems to me in this instance to be the best way—call it "The Dumping Commission" because I am not convinced that in all these things the translation of titles to Irish is a good thing. It is in some cases. Some of them have been a great success. An Foras Forbartha, although a little bit difficult to say, has caught on for the very good reason that it is so much shorter and easier than the National Building Construction and Physical Planning Institute.

Mr. Colley

And a lot more.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I have not got it right but it is something like that. Where you can use a brief Irish phrase it catches on and there are cases where it is appropriate to use the Irish title but I am not convinced that this is a case for using the Irish name. If it is to be used let us have it in the form it was originally or "The Dumping Commission" but let us dump this "Dumpála". If the Minister does not agree, I shall put down an amendment on this anyway.

In section 4 (11) provision is made for remuneration for members of the commission. I would only make the point that if members of the commission are civil servants I do not think there should be extra remuneration. I do not say this with any animus against civil servants but as a general principle.

We have introduced this system here where when civil servants are appointed as directors of public bodies additional remuneration is payable. I think this is a bad system. I think it would be better if civil servants, if they are not adequately paid, should be paid adequately but a system where if outside bodies are set up and if they are appointed to them they get extra remuneration seems to me to be bad because it does, in fact, create an incentive to establish such bodies, to establish bodies with directorships to which civil servants are appointed. I do not think there should be such an incentive and I do not think this should be done. This is something which has concerned me a good while and, indeed, I am not alone in this. There has been a good deal of concern expressed privately at any rate on this point. It seems to me to run contrary to any reasonable principles of public administration.

I should also like the Minister to say whether he visualises the members of this commission in fact as including civil servants or not. I would think they should not be civil servants in this instance and this is, indeed, a general principle although there are exceptions to it and I have defended these exceptions even when these have come under heavy fire. I think, on the whole, they should not be but I should like to hear the Minister's point of view and what his intentions are. I think we have a right to know this before such a commission is set up.

I come now to section 7 (1) (b). I am not happy with the wording here because it says that whenever various things happen

and the Commission is of opinion that the goods to which the request under paragraph (a) of this subsection relates have been or are being dumped. . . the Commission shall carry out an investigation of the matter. . .

This seems to me to be unsatisfactory. The commission should not be in the position of, first of all, making up its mind about something and then investigating the thing about which it has made up its mind. I do not think this is appropriate. If the Minister wishes here to make provision for a case where there is prima facie evidence of dumping, then he should say that where there is prima facie evidence of dumping the Commission shall. . . but I do not think the commission should be carrying out an investigation into something on which they have already expressed an opinion because if they had not there would not be an investigation. This seems to me to be inappropriate procedure.

In section 7 (2) I would ask why only the Minister can raise this issue of subsidisation and why is it not open, as in the case of dumping, to an interested party to raise the question of subsidisation. In this case of dumping either the Minister or an interested party producing evidence of the dumping can raise this question but in the case of subsidisation under subsection (2) only the Minister can do so. I should like to know why.

Section 7 (3) reads:

The Commission shall have regard to any international agreements or conventions to which the State is a party.

I should like to know why the comthese agreements. I feel that in so far as they could limit the action of the commission and in so far as they may have limited the drafting of this Bill we ought to be told something about them. The Minister has, in fact, referred in his opening remarks to Article 6 of the GATT. In this connection I would suggest perhaps that he could table the relevant articles of GATT and any other agreements—OECD perhaps—to which we are parties. I feel we should know what international obligations we have entered into at this point in time before we pass this legislation. Perhaps, he could make this available to us in some appropriate manner. Incidentally, the British Act does, in fact, mention GATT specifically in this connection, whereas we have not done so. Is there any reason for not coming clean and putting it into the Act rather than leaving it open in this way? If there are international agreements, I feel we should be told what they are and they should be put into the Act as was done in the UK Act.

Section 8 requires publication in Iris Oifigiúil and in such national daily newspaper or newspapers as is thought fit. I trust the commission will not adopt the practice of the Minister for Agriculture in using this power to advertise for political purposes by withholding advertising from particular journals. I shall not take that point any further tonight.

Section 9 reads:

If a member of the commission is personally interested in a particular matter with which the commission is dealing, he shall inform the Minister of State who appointed him to the commission accordingly and shall not act as a member during the consideration of the matter, unless that Minister, being of opinion that his interest is not such as to interfere with the impartial performance of his duties, authorises him to act.

I think this is reasonable but this should be publicly stated. There should be a requirement that in such a case the Minister should advertise the fact publicly that this interest has been declared and that he has, nevertheless, authorised the person to act. It will not help public confidence in this body if it is thought that the Minister may behind the scenes be giving authority for people to act where they have an interest and this is not publicly known. I think the section is perfectly all right as long as there is the requirement to publish the fact.

Section 10 (1) reads:

The commission may for the purposes of its functions:

(a) request witnesses "other than the Revenue Commissioners and their officers" to attend before it,

I should like to know why the commission will not have the Revenue Commissioners appearing before it as witnesses, although, in fact, the Revenue Commissioners can be required to produce information for the commission. I would have thought that if the Revenue Commissioners are required to produce information it would be not only desirable but essential that they should be available as witnesses in relation to such documents. That they should be accepted specifically and excluded as witnesses seems to be nonsensical in relation to subsection (3) of section 10 which requires them to furnish information. Section 13 deals with provisional duties. As I have already asked the Minister to give an indication of how speedily this operates, I will not say anything further on it. In section 14 (2) (a) it is stated:

Whenever the commission makes a recommendation to the Minister under subsection (1) of this section in relation to goods of any kind and the Minister is satisfied that there has been injurious dumping of goods of that kind.

Why put in those words about the Minister being satisfied. It seems to me that if the commission make a recommendation to the Minister they should be satisfied to give the Government power. I could understand if the clause implied that the Government "must" because then it might be necessary to put in a qualification that the Minister must be satisfied with the qualification. I cannot see why the Government should be prevented in this section when the commission make a recommendation from having that power unless it is backed up by something else. I should like to see this deleted altogether so that whenever the commission make a recommendation the Government may if they are satisfied impose a duty.

The second leg of that particular double "whenever the commission makes a recommendation to the Minister" or "whenever goods of any kind have been dumped the Government may if they so think fit by order impose a duty" seems to undermine the whole procedure here in this Bill, which is designed to identify dumping by this commission procedure so that whatever action is taken is as a result of a decision of the commission or where the commission recommends a provisional duty to avoid dumping while it is carrying out its investigation, yet here we have a case where the Government can impose a duty and are by-passing the commission altogether. This seems to me to be quite unsatisfactory.

In subsection (3) of section 14 there is a phrase in line 54 "whichever is the lesser" and without going into detail, I should like that explained. I should like to commend section 17 because I am aware of this particular problem in regard to glass containers. It is important that it should be dealt with and that it should be given particular treatment here. I welcome this particular provision.

In section 19, line 43, I should like some guidance on what is the purpose of the words "something else". It says "references to a subsidy are references to a bounty given directly or indirectly by way of grant, loan or tax relief or in any other way and whether related directly to the goods themselves, to materials of the goods or to something else". A subsidy or bounty relating to something else other than goods or materials seems quite impossible. "Something else" seems an extraordinarily vague phrase to put into this Bill. I wonder if we could get something more precise than this.

Section 20 refers to this question of ninety days. This was something which came up in the Dáil. I do not think this is adequate and the view of industry is that it is not. Again, the Minister has said in a vague way that it is a GATT provision but it is one to which we have not adhered and one to which we should not adhere if it involves a limit of up to a period of ninety days for this. I would urge the Minister to look at this. I think an amendment on this was ruled out of order in the Dáil but that does not mean the Minister might not amend it. I think industry is happy with this Bill but one point about it with which it is not happy concerns this particular point. I should like the Minister to have another look at it and to tell us why he felt obliged to accept this ninety days period when it arises under a provision of GATT, which we have not adhered to.

Finally, in section 23 there are words which require explanation such as in line 36 "from any country". Subsection (1) states:

The Revenue Commissioners may require a person who imports goods to state such facts concerning the goods and their history as they may think necessary to determine whether the goods are goods produced in a country specified under this Act or are goods exported from any country.

Goods must be exported from some country if they are imported here. If they are not, why worry about dumping? It seems to me that the draftsman has gone a bit wild here. I am bothered about the second clause of subsection (1) of section 23 which states:

Provided that the Revenue Commissioners shall require proof of the country in which goods were produced in relation to any duty under this Act in the case only of goods exported from such countries as the Minister may direct in relation to that duty.

I cannot follow that or how that would work. Perhaps the Minister could explain that to us because it does seem to me to be unworkable.

Those are points of detail and I apologise to the Minister for keeping him and the House on this but this is the only way we can raise those points and decide whether we should put down amendments on Committee Stage. I thought I had a further point arising out of the Minister's introductory speech but as I cannot trace it at the moment I will leave it at that.

Mr. Murphy

I note the Minister's concern about Irish producers, which I share, in relation to dumping on the market here but if I am a little bit more concerned about the workers employed in industry, I am sure he will understand it. The Minister describes this legislation as being flexible and acceptable. "Acceptable" is the word that worries me because I do not think legislation is acceptable whatever about it being flexible. I think really what governs it all is what is acceptable and acceptable to whom? Acceptable to GATT or other countries? We seem to be operating this scheme under a very constrained position. I am quite frankly worried as to whether this will be effective because from what little I know of customs procedure it seems to me that the customs people will have no function to hold up or examine critically imports coming in, whether they would be likely to be products which are dumped or not. If they are all right under customs procedure they pass in and if they are being dumped I think a lot would depend on the flow of goods and possibly the nature of the goods themselves. For example, if cars started to flow in as being dumped it probably would be spotted by the people affected, by the producers here and they would be howling about it before many cars were dumped.

But, supposing something small like a few crates, half a cargo of, say, soup was dumped this would pass through the customs without comment if the customs papers were OK and until this appeared on the market the people who would be affected by the dumping would possibly not know anything about it until it had an effect on their sales. At that time it seems to me that it would be too late to take any action.

The Minister made a point that the Bill is providing for retroactive levy. He said that it may be imposed only on goods to which a provisional duty applies, but may be charged on any such goods which were imported during a period of 90 days before the date on which the provisional duty was imposed.

Before the provisional duty is applied at all the commission have to make representations or advise the Minister. The Minister then asks a provisional duty to be imposed and this may be retroactive to the extent of 90 days. We could have a situation in which the stuff which has been dumped has been coming in over a period and nobody spotted it in the sense that it is dumped. It is coming in and suddenly it appears on the market and the home manufacturer becomes alarmed and he makes representations to the commission. The commission make representations to the Minister to impose a provisional duty and that provisional duty may be retroactive for 90 days but the most of the goods which are, in effect, doing injury to the home producer may have come in long before the 90 days and nothing can be done in that situation and the home manufacturer could quite well be ruined and his workers put out of employment as a result.

I am reading what the Minister said and this seems to me to be a definite shortcoming in the Bill. I am wondering are we, in fact, being caught here by the terms of the GATT agreement. In other words, are our hands being tied and cannot we take action which might be necessary in our peculiar circumstances, which might be necessary to protect our home manufacturer against dumping? That is what makes me unhappy in regard to this Bill and I will be glad to hear the Minister's reply when I hope he will assure us that my fears in this respect are groundless.

It seems that the 90 days are relatively short and I hope the Minister is not prevented by any international agreement from extending this period in so far as it might be necessary to protect our home industries. The Minister also points out that the Bill provides against dumping with respect to third countries. He says that if dumping attacks the markets of another country in this country, even though it does not injure a domestic industry, he has provision to act in those circumstances.

What I am concerned about is dumping in another country which injures our producers and exporters here and understandably the Bill does not deal with that. Can the Minister give us an assurance that parallel provisions in other countries would protect our exporters here? For example, if an exporter has built up a remunerative market in Britain, as some industries have done and is giving good employment here and somebody from Japan dumps into the British market it does not injure the British producer but puts out of business a producer or a factory in this country. There is nothing in this Bill to enable us to do anything about it which is understandable because we cannot deal with the position in the British market.

I would like to have assurances, in so far as we are making provision in this Bill to help exporters in this country against the adverse effects of dumping into this market, that parallel provisions would be made in other countries. That is a long sentence but I hope the Minister understands the points I am making.

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not intend to delay on this Bill. I know the Minister wants to get in with another Bill at 9.45 and I am sure we are all anxious to hear what he has to say on the points made by Senator FitzGerald. The House must be grateful to Senator FitzGerald for the lucid manner in which he dealt with all the problems associated with dumping and, indeed, with regard to this Bill. When reading the Bill "dumping" and "anti-dumping" occurred in every second sentence and, in fact, the words "dumping" and "anti-dumping" occurred 60 times. I must say we were not much wiser until Senator FitzGerald gave a masterly explanation of the situation.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is obvious that this is a case of mutual admiration.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is time somebody recognised merit when it makes its appearance in this House. I think what I say about Senator FitzGerald is well merited.

What perturbs me about this Bill— Senator FitzGerald said this also—is that it is only temporary in so far as we and Common Market countries are concerned. I thought from what the Minister had to say and from all that is contained in the GATT agreement that this was the first shot in the locker for Common Market membership; that is, if Senator FitzGerald is correct. I take it he is. For that reason, I am somewhat disappointed to find what I thought was legislation with a real future turns out not to be so.

The point that concerns me and also Senator Murphy is that the machinery for bringing this Bill into effective operation when we are threatened with dumping of a particular commodity seems to be altogether too lugubrious, the very fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be able to impose a provisional duty and salve the consciences of the commission and everybody else. The duty will last for only a limited period but all the damage will have been done by that time and I can see this slow-moving body providing excuses but not delivering the goods that Irish workers and Irish industry require them to deliver. Indeed, it is deplorable in a Bill of this kind to realise that when we appoint five members of a commission only two of them will constitute a quorum. It is deplorable to say that people who are paid good salaries out of public funds will be absent from private deliberations of the commission. I could understand one having a cold or being away but to say that two out of five will be a quorum——

Mr. Murphy

There might be a by-election.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Or a trade union congress.

Mr. O'Quigley

That may be so but it is wrong that the board should be limited to that number. I entirely agree with Senator FitzGerald on the use of the term "Coimisiún Dumpála". Immediately I saw it I thought it was daft. The Bord Traenála was another by-product of the Department of Industry and Commerce, given birth to by the Department of Labour. I do not think it helps the Irish language cause one whit to concoct words of that kind. As has been said, it makes it a cockshot, makes people laugh at it and say: "Sure, it is not a language at all, it is all a made-up business".

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They do not laugh at the phrase "Aer Lingus".

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

There are some successful instances.

Mr. Colley

I do not think I have a lot of time at my disposal but within it I hope to deal with most of the points raised. I should make it clear, first of all, that the provision in this Bill for the imposition of retroactive levies is a very wide power to confer, one that could, indeed, put importers into this country out of business. I also think its main effect will be as a form of insurance. Senators Murphy and O'Quigley did not advert to this provision as a form of insurance. If you put yourself in the position of a man importing dumped goods into this country, you will know there is a risk that by doing this you may find that for 90 days back there will be a levy imposed which could be at such a level as to put you out of business. You will think twice before doing it knowingly.

Mr. Murphy

It is limited.

Mr. Colley

Limited?

Mr. Murphy

Limited by what is the fair price.

Mr. Colley

A levy is limited only to the margin at which dumping is authorised. It means there is no dumping but that if a man imports goods at a dumped price, sells them, has got his price, and the levies imposed, he takes the rap.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

If he holds them for three months?

Mr. Colley

If he does that he is taking the risk that the provisional levy will be applied straight away and in due course an anti-dumping levy. The suggestion that he is bringing them in, disposing of them and that the damage is done before anything can be done about it must be considered in the light of the fact that he is running a risk and that he must calculate the risk before he takes it. Another thing which is basic to our approach to the Bill is that we are conforming to international agreements in this matter and in particular to the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain in which each country agreed to operate dumping legislation in accordance with the GATT regulations. It may be thought that is a limitation on us. That is true on the basis that no goods could be dumped in any circumstances but we must remember that similar legislation could be operated against us in other countries. We would have no protection in other countries and it must be remembered that our dependence on exports becomes increasingly important. Therefore, unless there is international agreement on what can and cannot be done about dumping, small countries like this will be in serious difficulties. On balance, the existence of an international code is to our advantage rather than against us.

Mr. Murphy

We are hardly potential dumpers.

Mr. Colley

I do not think I should like to comment on that. I do not hope to be able to deal with all the points raised by Senator FitzGerald at this stage. Many of them can be dealt with more appropriately on Committee Stage and if the Senator wishes to put down amendments he can do so. On the point he raised about the delay in introducing this legislation, I wish to say it is not valid and I do not care how many reports of the FII and the NIEC he quotes. First of all, it is clearly demonstrated that the machinery we now have of ordinary tariff protection and quotas is more effective than this could ever be, and on the basis of what has happened there is no evidence that there has been serious dumping up to now. The reason is that we have had that legislation in operation and that our tariffs have been at a level that would not allow substantial damage——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I made that point.

Mr. Colley

Therefore, it is not a case of the long delays and negligence implied by Senator FitzGerald. Perhaps, that is not what he wished to convey.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It is not.

Mr. Colley

Senator FitzGerald knows that this legislation was drafted and was about to be introduced after a good deal of consultation with the British as we were obliged to do under our Free Trade Area Agreement. He also knows there was long and protracted negotiation within GATT in relation to the GATT code and that ultimately when the GATT code was circulated in June of last year it provided for retroactive legislation which was vital to what we wanted and it was well worth our while recasting our legislation on that basis. It is something we and our manufacturers wanted and to misrepresent our position, to suggest that the Government were sitting on this problem for years until urged on by the NIEC and FII does not present an accurate picture of what really happened.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I was unaware of that. This offers some explanation of the delay. I was not misrepresenting the position. I was quite unaware that that was the reason for the delay. I accept it.

Mr. Colley

I mentioned it before.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

The Minister emphasised the other point repeatedly.

Mr. Colley

I have made my point. I shall not dwell on it. I think Senator FitzGerald said the motor vehicle arrangement is temporary and will have no effect once we go into the EEC. Again, this is not an accurate picture of the position, in my opinion. When we go into the EEC, the position depends on what we negotiate with the EEC. Therefore, it would not be possible to say that this will not operate nor would it be possible to say it would operate fully in the EEC. From our point of view at the moment, all we can do is to legislate for the position as it is now—not for a position which is dependent on negotiations which have not yet taken place. I can say that we have discussed this matter with the EEC. I myself have discussed it with Monsieur Rey some time ago and I have indicated to him our special problems in this regard—particularly the danger of sporadic dumping in a small market like ours and the danger arising from the sea frontier, as Senator FitzGerald pointed out. I made it clear that we would expect, in negotiations with the EEC, to have special provisions which would cover this very real danger for us.

I feel, from the reaction I got, that these problems are understood in Brussels. Certainly, it was indicated to me that there was no objection in principle to the idea of special provisions to deal with the special difficulties we have, although Senator FitzGerald was quite correct in saying that the general attitude in the commission, certainly, is one of the doctrinaire theory that there cannot be dumping within the Common Market. I think even the people who say this admit it is doctrinaire and is not very realistic.

As to how this compares with the British Act, it compares to some extent rather closely while in other respects it differs. In the main, I think it differs to our benefit. One example of this is that there is no commission under the British Act. It is administered by a Government Department—the Board of Trade. This, of course, reduces the credibility of the whole dumping procedure internationally. In addition, I think our legislation is more effective in regard to the provisional duties, to the levy and to the commission—as I mentioned, there is a Government Department there—in the power of the commission to refund excessive payment and in the provisions for confidentiality. Under the British Act, I understand action can be taken only after examination of the complaint.

Representation on the commission and, in particular, the question of the chairmanship changing in the event of agricultural grants being dealt with, are not there simply to assuage the vanities of civil servants or anybody else. If the commission is dealing with agricultural produce, it is very important that the people dealing with it should have as good a knowledge as possible of the produce concerned and of the markets for it in circumstances in which it may be necessary to determine very quickly whether provisional duties should be imposed. That the people dealing with this are people who know what the whole problem is about and who have to refer back as little as possible to find out about the position is a matter of importance to us if the legislation is to be effective.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister proposes to change only the chairmanship when these are discussed and not the personnel. How is that?

Mr. Colley

As the Senator knows, it could happen that the approach of industrialists may be different from that of agriculturists especially if there is a question of a raw material for industry involved. The people who are concerned with the particular product about which the complaint is made— where it is agricultural—should be the people who would have the dominant position in that kind of investigation.

With regard to the provision for 90 days application of the levy, it is true that there was a suggestion that this should be made 180 days. As I mentioned in Dáil Éireann, this would not be in accordance with the GATT code to which I have referred which provides only for 90 days. Under our Free Trade Area Agreement with Great Britain, we must give Britain GATT treatment so that, even if we were to ignore the GATT code and make this 180 days instead of 90 days, we should have to make an exception in the case of Britain but I think we would be very severely attacked in GATT if we were to do this and eventually it might bring retaliation against us in GATT.

I think the question of having this Bill will improve our position in the event of negotiations with the Common Market for membership and, indeed, in this regard, we shall be in a stronger position than the British because, as I have said, our Bill is more effective than theirs. It is not the position that this legislation will just come to an end when we join the Common Market but, rather, the position obtaining when we conduct our negotiations will be important from the point of view that, negotiating from the position which we shall occupy, this Bill will put us, I think, in a stronger position than the British.

With regard to the use of the word "dumping", I am sure the House is aware that the Government, for a long time have been operating a policy that, where possible, in the event of setting up any State Boards, the title should be in Irish and should be one that can easily be used and remembered. I think there is some misunderstanding about the word "dumping". The word "dumping" is used in French and in German. I said a similar word was used in Scandinavia. In one case it is "dompe" and in another case another word is used which sounds the same. People get the sound "dump", which we have in Irish—"dompála". It is merely to conform with the structure of the language it is in. I do not know why anybody should say it is a made-up word and that this is bringing the Irish language into disrepute. In similar circumstances, they do not say that about the French and German languages.

I agree with Senator FitzGerald in his discussion of the principle of civil servants being paid extra for serving on State boards or otherwise: I quite agree with the principle involved. The practice that has grown up in the past is, I think, unfortunate. I have not considered the question of the membership of this commission, as yet. It seems to me prima facie that civil servants would not be the right people to be members of this because we want to make it clear that this commission will act independent of the Government and of the Minister. It might be more difficult to do this if we had civil servants. I am saying this off the cuff. I have not given any consideration to it, but this is the way it strikes me at the moment.

I think I am running over the time that was set earlier.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

You are only holding yourself up.

Mr. Colley

I do not mind if it is the wish of the House. There was a point raised on subsection (2), subsection (1). Senator Garret FitzGerald said that he did not know why the additional words "any such costs, charges or expenses are required to be met separately by the buyer" are in. The reason for these words is that it is quite likely that the price in the contract of sale will be such that certain deductions from or additions to the price will be necessary to arrive at the export price. For example if the invoice shows the price for goods delivered at an Irish port, demands will have to be met for any charges at the port unless it is clear from the contract that this would be met separately by the buyer. To arrive at a comparable figure between the prices on the home and the export market one must compare like with like at the same point of sale. If there are port charges and so on one must ensure in making a comparison that if the buyer has to pay the charges an adjustment has to be made, and if the seller has to pay these charges a corresponding adjustment has to be made, in order to compare like with like. That is the only reason why these words are in.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It seems to be the opposite to the wording that would be needed for that.

Mr. Colley

We can deal with that on Committee Stage. The question was asked as to whether we had adopted the FII proposals. It was not possible to adopt those proposals in particular in relation to the control by customs officers. It is true that this system is used in Canada but it is subject to very severe criticism in GATT and has been attacked all the time and if we had contemplated it we might have found it difficult to accede to the GATT. The FII has been consulted at various stages in the preparation of this legislation and has not indicated dissatisfaction with the present Bill.

I think that many of the points raised are more appropriate to the Committee Stage, and I do not think I can attempt to deal with any more of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, March 20th, 1968.