asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if An Coimisiún Dumpála have investigated alleged dumping of footwear into this country; and, if so, the results.

An Coimisiún Dumpála has completed two formal investigations of dumping of footwear. The first, in 1973 at the request of a manufacturer, related to men's working boots imported from Czechoslovakia and resulted in the imposition by the Government of an anti-dumping duty of 28 per cent ad valorem which has been in force since 18th December, 1973. The second, in 1975 at the Minister's request, related to footwear imported from certain South-East Asian and other low-cost countries, found that, while there was no injurious dumping at that time, the matter should be kept under review. A third investigation, also at the Minister's request, is now in progress and, in effect, is a continuation of the 1975 investigation; it is not possible to forecast the result of this investigation.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that whatever action has been taken to date has been of no value; that, in fact, the imports, like the imports of refrigerators, are now greater than the total home market consumption and would he state what he proposes to do in relation to this matter?

Again, the question addressed to me by the Deputy is concerned solely with the question of dumping, not with the general measures which may be taken in relation to footwear. Do I take it that his question is merely about the matter of dumping or is he asking a more general question?

The question I have asked relates to dumping. I assumed that the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to answer any questions in relation to a situation which is so serious that thousands of footwear workers have become unemployed and unemployment faces quite a considerable number of those at present employed in the industry.

On the general question, I would point out to the Deputy that this matter was the subject of parliamenary questions in the House only yesterday. I can say that I completely repudiate the suggestion made by the Deputy which I think nobody who knows the situation could agree with to the effect that what has been done so far is of no value. It is obvious that the rate of duty now obtaining on imports of footwear into this country from within the Community is very considerably higher than it would otherwise have been had it not been for the intervention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have an alteration made in the normal scaling-down of import duties which was to take place under the terms of the Treaty of Accession negotiated prior to the coming into office of the present Government.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that had it not been for the pressure from this side of the House the Minister would have done nothing; secondly, that import controls at the present level of tariffs is no higher than in 1975; thirdly, that the imports are flowing in at a much greater rate now than ever before? Surely the Parliamentary Secretary ought to concern himself with this matter rather than trying to score political points.

I think the Deputy is trying to score political points. The situation is that the referral of the imports of footwear to the Dumping Commission on the Minister's own initiative was the first ever such initiative by a Minister since the present legislation was enacted to refer matters to the Dumping Commission. Under previous Governments the situation was that all dumping inquiries were taken solely at the initiative of people in the trade itself. The situation may be as the Deputy states, that the level of duty is no higher than it was in 1975. But under the terms of the Treaty of Accession, if these had been adhered to the duties would have been far lower than they were in 1975——

Even for third countries?

——and it was the Minister's intervention which ensured that the alteration in the terms was effected. There is certainly a serious problem in relation to the importation of footwear which is filling an increasing share of our market, and this is a matter about which the Minister has expressed serious concern on a number of occasions. However, I would point out to the House that there has been a decline in consumption of footwear from whatever source in 1975 as against 1974 of approximately 14 per cent and this is another factor operating in that situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary may be assured that I am very well aware of the situation in the footwear industry, there being quite a number of footwear factories in my constituency. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that footwear is being imported into this country from low-cost countries and at prices so low that it is obvious that it is dumping? As I did in relation to refrigerators, might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he expects a report from the Dumping Commission on this matter?

If it is as obvious as the Deputy says that the footwear in question is being dumped, then I presume the Dumping Commission, which is a technical body competent to make a decision in this matter, will so find but to date their finding has not been reported finally to the Minister.

One final question. In view of the fact that the situation has now reached crisis point where stockists are stocking up foreign footwear and where travellers from Irish firms will have very considerable difficulty in having their footwear purchased in the coming year, can the Parliamentary Secretary say what further steps he proposes to take in relation to this very serious situation?

I cannot give an indication as to when the report of the Dumping Commission will be made at this stage. There is no final date in sight but the situation will be reviewed in the light of the result of this inquiry. The Minister is in constant touch with the commission to ensure that they realise, as they do, the urgency of the situation and the need to report at the earliest possible date.

Do the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and the Department not realise that ad valorem duty is absolutely useless with regard to the very low-cost countries? Would he not take some steps when he knows that shoes can be imported from Taiwan at 75p at Dublin Airport and that 100 per cent ad valorem duty would still bring them up to only £1.50? Is this not the basic problem at the moment?

It certainly is a problem that arises specifically from the low costs that obtained in other countries, as distinct from the question of dumping. To that extent the implication of the Deputy's question is correct. However, I think he is quite wrong in using the term "absolutely useless" in relation to ad valorem duties and I do not think that he would be prepared to stand over that statement when he reflects on it.

I will stand over it so far as low-cost countries are concerned. That is not EEC trade and I would ask the Department to wake up to the problem.

I am calling Question No. 7.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask for quotas?

I have called Question No. 7.