Vol. 53 No. 12
I move amendment No. 1.
In sub-section (2), page 2, line 32, to delete the figure and letters "1st" and substitute the figure and letters "2nd".
We inserted a date 1st July in the Bill. That date is a Sunday, and so it is necessary to change it to Monday. Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 12 all deal with the same point.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 3, lines 31, 33, 34, 43, 45, 47, and 49, to delete the figure and letters "1st" and substitute the figure and letters "2nd," and in page 4, lines 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 14, to delete the figure and letters "1st" and substitute the figure and letters "2nd."
This is the same point—that the 1st July was on a Sunday.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (5), page 7, to delete lines 1 to 4, inclusive, and substitute the words "shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding fifty pounds for every day during which the offence is continued.
It is intended that the penalty, having regard to the nature of the offence, should be one which should bear relation to the period over which the offence was committed, and so it is proposed to delete the penalty in sub-section (5) of Section 9 and to insert the penalty stated in the amendment. It is obviously desirable, having regard to the nature of the offence, that a penalty of that kind should be imposed.
I move amendment No. 4.
In sub-section (1), page 8, lines 15, 18, 20, 27, 30, 44, 46, 49, and 51, to delete the figure and letters "1st" and substitute the figure and letters "2nd"; and in page 9, lines 3 and 6, to delete the figure and letters "1st" and substitute the figure and letters "2nd".
There is the same point here as in amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 5.
In sub-section (1), page 8, lines 22, 23, 36, 38, 53, and 55, to delete the word "at" and substitute the word "on"; in line 57, to delete the word "is" and substitute the word "was"; in line 58, to delete the words "is at" and substitute the words "was on"; and in page 9, lines 12, 17, 19, 28, and 40, to delete the word "at" and substitute the word "on".
This is to improve the grammar of the section; it is a drafting amendment.
I move amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
In sub-section (2), page 9, lines 53 and 57 to delete the figure and letters "1st" and substitute the figure and letters "2nd".
In sub-section (2), page 10, lines 1, 7, 19, and 36, to delete the word "at" and substitute the word "on".
In sub-section (3), page 10, lines 51, 54, 56, and 64, to delete the word "at" and substitute the word "on"; and in page 11, line 2, to delete the word "at" and substitute the word "on".
In sub-section (4), page 11, lines 4, 12, 14, 19, 22, and 24, to delete the word "at" and substitute the word "on"; to insert in line 27 after the word "been" the words "on the specified date" and to delete in line 28 the words "at the specified date"; and to insert in line 31 after the word "been" the words "on the specified date"; and to delete in lines 31 and 32 the words "at the specified date".
In sub-section (5), to delete in line 42 the word "at" and substitute the words "to have been on", and to delete in line 44 the words "to be"; and to delete in lines 46 and 49 the words "be at" and substitute the words "have been on".
These are all purely drafting amendments.
I move amendments No. 11 and No. 12:—
In sub-section (8), page 12, to insert in line 2, after the word "was" the words "on a particular date" and to delete in line 3 the words "on a particular date"; and to insert in lines 6 and 18 after the word "was" the words "on such date" and to delete in lines 7 and 19 the words "at such date."
In sub-section (8), page 12, line 23, to delete the figure and letters "1st" and substitute the figure and letters "2nd."
I wish the Minister would consider the point I raised on the Second Reading. That is a matter with which I am mostly concerned. As I told the House on the Second Reading, I do not want to discuss this Bill at all from the Party point of view. But I am really perturbed as to the dangers involved in legislation of this kind, especially if there are a number of Parties supporting the Government or a number of people on whom the Government is depending. The Government may be depending on a bloc to maintain its position, and I do not think it would be possible in the circumstances to avoid corruption. It would, at all events, be exceedingly difficult. The Minister recognises that, even for his own comfort, this is a very bad provision in the Bill. Whether the Minister is in the position he now holds and which he hopes to occupy for a longer time, and which I hope he will not, or whether a better Government will be in office——
Impossible.
——I think he would be in a very bad position under the provision in this section. I know our greatest boon while we were the late Government was the Act setting up the Appointments Commissioners. I think the Minister would, from the point of view of his own comfort alone, be in a much better position if we would leave a decision of this kind in the hands of an expert committee which would be in a semi-judicial position. It is not from the point of view of the comfort of the Minister that I urge this, but from the point of view of general policy. I think there are dangers inherent, as the Minister himself acknowledged in his replying speech when this Bill was last before the House.
There are undoubtedly dangers inherent in this type of legislation. I do not want to stress the point but there are these dangers there. I think these dangers could be greatly diminished if the Minister would consent to have some kind of judicial or semi-judicial body set up to decide this matter of imports independent of the pressure that can be brought to bear upon members of the Government and members of Parties. I think, unless something of that kind is done, the future will show that all kinds of pressure will be brought to bear on members of the Government and members of Parties. That pressure will become almost intolerable or it will become successful. In either case it would be most regrettable. A certain amount of danger is always inherent in this particular type of legislation but I think it can always be diminished if a body of the type I suggest could be appointed.
The Deputy appreciates that there are two decisions which arise, and I am not quite clear as to which of them he has related his remarks. The first is the political decision—that a certain commodity shall be declared to be a reserved commodity and consequently shall become subject to this Bill. That is a decision which has to be come to by the Executive; but effect cannot be given to it until approved of by the Dáil. Following that, another series of decisions become necessary, namely, to whom is the licence going to be issued or to whom are the licences going to be issued to engage in the production of the commodity that has been declared a reserved commodity? It is at that stage, I presume, that the Deputy anticipates that undesirable pressure will be exercised.
He does not accept that sequence at all.
That seems to me to be the danger point—if there were a limited number of licences to be issued and there was competition among competing firms for these licences. But that is a position of affairs that is not likely to arise because in relation to the commodities that I contemplate Orders under this part of the Bill will be made, the trouble will be to get somebody to engage in the production rather than to choose between a number of competitors. There are various safeguards; first, that this part of the Bill is intended not to apply to any commodity that is not manufactured in the Saorstát at present or at the date on which the Order in respect of that commodity is made. There is a phrase there that is causing Deputies concern. The words are "not being manufactured in Saorstát Eireann to a substantial extent." That is a safeguarding phrase. It is possible that a better form of words could be used, a form of words which would more clearly express the idea intended—that no Order should be made in respect of any article manufactured at all except in a purely experimental way in the Saorstát. If nobody is engaged in the production of the commodity for sale on a commercial scale, then I think no Order under this part of the Bill could or should be made in respect of that commodity. There will be a couple of weeks between the Committee Stage and the Report Stage of this Bill and if I can find a better form of words or a more limiting phrase than that in the Bill I will move an amendment on Report Stage. I invite Deputies to consider that point of view. I consider there must be some safeguarding phrase or otherwise some difficulty might arise if Orders were made under that Bill and if somebody came forward and said he had manufactured a commodity in a workshop attached to his residence in a purely experimental way and claimed damages in consequence of the making of the Order and thus prevent the development of an industry concerned with the production of these commodities in a commercial scale in the Saorstát.
I do not think there is any machinery which could be established to safeguard the issue of licences under this part of the Bill—that is, licences to engage in the manufacture of a commodity in respect of which an order has been made—that would be more likely to be proof against undesirable influences than the machinery contemplated in the Bill. I cannot believe it is possible to get any body of people who will be so immune from the possibility of pressure of all kinds that they are to be preferred in that connection to the Executive Council of the State, who, after all, are carrying on their activities in relation to matters of this kind in the full light of publicity, and who are accountable for all their actions to the elected representatives of the people, and ultimately to the people themselves. In this connection there is the fullest publicity. The fact that the order is made is an indication to all interested parties that licences are about to be issued to engage in the manufacture of the commodities subject to the order. All parties concerned can at that stage, if they so wish, make application for the issue of a licence. The licence is made public; it is made subject to conditions which are set out on the face of the Bill, and is available for inspection by interested parties. That machinery is, I think, as effective as any we can get. I must say I am not a hundred per cent. enthusiastic over this part of the Bill. I think it is necessary, having regard to the difficulties of securing the establishment in this State of certain industries, but the number of industries in respect of which those difficulties arise is exceedingly limited. They are only those industries in respect of which it is not possible to contemplate more than one or two units of an economic size operating, having regard to the limitation upon the market here. The existence of this part of the Bill is going to lead to representations for the making of an order on behalf of everybody proposing to engage in a new industry here, and it will necessitate the preparation of a printed refusal form in my Department to be issued automatically to all those people. I am anxious to be in the position of telling those people that I have no power to make the order which they desire. We have brought it in that it is the Executive Council is to make the order, and that it will not become effective until the Dáil has approved of it. That is one safeguard. If Deputies can get me a form of words which will confine this part of the Bill to such industries as cement, where very heavy capital expenditure is involved and where the economic unit is a considerable affair, so that the number that could be established in relation to a particular industry in this country is very limited, I shall be very glad to accept that form of words, and rule out the possibility of orders being made under this part of the Bill in respect of any industry where it is possible to have a number of factories engaged in it, working on an economic scale and requiring the combined production of them all to supply the requirements of the market here. The alternative to inserting Part III in this Bill is to contemplate the introduction, in relation to main industries, of legislation of the type we have already had enacted in relation to the cement industry. I do not see that there is any advantage in necessitating the preparation of separate legislation, having regard to the fact that an order under this Part of the Bill does not become effective until the Dáil has approved of it.
I am glad the Minister gave me this opportunity as, apparently, I was not quite clear on the matter. It is precisely more, I might say, at the initial stage than ultimately that I would expect corruption or attempted corruption. The Minister distinguished between the two stages, the first stage being the making of the order that a certain commodity is a reserved commodity; and the second stage, that order having been made, who is to get the monopoly. May I divide them into those two stages? I expect any amount of pressure so far as the first stage is concerned. The Minister says he can only see one or two instances of pressure. It does not depend upon what the Minister sees; it depends upon what other people see. The Minister knows perfectly well that there are any number of people willing to see any number of opportunities in this Bill for declaring certain commodities reserved under this part of the Bill. In fact, in the concluding portion of his statement, he acknowledged that there are any number of people who will be anxious to get certain commodities declared reserved commodities—so many that he will have to get a printed form saying "Nothing doing." That is precisely where the pressure will start. The Minister will say "I cannot make it. The Dáil will make it." Now we have had a certain amount of experience of this Dáil in resisting the Minister's proposals of various kinds. I think the Minister has been two and a half years in office. When did the Dáil rise up in their indignation and reject anything which the Minister has brought forward? I have had occasion to complain, as the Minister knows, in connection with other Bills, that the Dáil is becoming merely a registration body. They do not listen to anything. They simply come in and do what the Minister tells them. Does the Minister think that the excuse put forward by him to, shall I say, an enterprising manufacturer—we had better avoid offensive terms—or would-be manufacturer, that the Dáil has to pass it or that the Executive Council has to pass it, will save him from pressure? First of all they will say "The Dáil will back you up." They will go in then and lobby the members of the Executive Council. Remember, I am not speaking now of the present or the past; I am speaking of what I fear may occur.
Would not the same arise if legislation were necessary?
Why not?
I do not suggest legislation. I will get on to that. Any amount of pressure will be brought to bear. If people are serious in their belief that the Dáil has really a voice in the matter, as it may have, if proportional representation, as I suggested the last day, works out and you have a number of Parties, then pressure will be brought to bear on the Parties. It does not matter whether there is a case on the merits for declaring a commodity reserved or not. Pressure will be determined according as to whether or not people see an opportunity to make money out of it. What I suggest, and what other people found necessary I think in order to save themselves, is that the primary decision in this matter should be with a kind of commission of experts, independent individuals who will investigate it, and unless it has passed them the Government should not have any power to bring it before the House. If the Minister thinks it necessary that no such order should pass without the Government's consent, let that come after the examination by an independent body of experts—a body independent of pressure from the Government or anybody else.
How are you going to guarantee that?
You have it in the case of the judiciary. They are independent of the Executive Council. For instance, take the argument which the Minister used about the Government being responsible to the people; that would apply equally well for the abolition of the judiciary. Let the Government decide who is to go to jail and who is not, because ultimately they are responsible to the people and will be called to task by the people if they abuse their powers. You can get a body of the kind I have mentioned, which will not be amenable to pressure. Men of that kind are not amenable to pressure, because they are independent of Parties. You will not get a House, and you will not get a Government, ultimately, in the long run, especially if it is made up of composite parts, as may easily happen, to be independent of pressure. You have it in the case of tariffs in various countries.
That is an argument in favour of the abolition of Governments.
No, excuse me. You might as well say that an independent judiciary is an argument in favour of the abolition of Governments. It is nothing of the kind. What you want to get is an unbiassed decision as to the value of it, independent of pressure. That is the reason we have an independent judiciary and that is the reason that judges are not capable of being pressed by a Government or by anybody else. That is the importance of that. I suggest that it would be much better in the ultimate working out of the success of this scheme, if a similar body could be established. That is what I am arguing for. When they have made their investigation and given their decision, it is not necessary for the Government to put it into effect, but the Government should not be allowed to put it into effect unless they have reported in favour of it. Then, let it come before the House, if the Minister thinks it necessary. I think it would be much better from the point of view of sound manufacture in this country and much better from the Minister's point of view and from the point of view of the country, if he could see his way to adopt a suggestion of that kind.
I should like to approach this question from a slightly different angle. Deputy Professor O'Sullivan wants an independent body to consider this matter. I am not at all sure that the Minister sees the difficulties that are going to arise in connection with it. He has mentioned cement as an instance, and perhaps the word "cement" is written on the Minister's heart, but I do not think that there is going to be any difficulty with regard to cement. One could not manufacture cement in one's leisure hours in a back garden, but it seems to me that there are other commodities which approach what I might call the borderline, and in respect of which there is a grave danger of an injustice being done to the Irish manufacturers. I should like the Minister to look at that aspect of the question. I am not for a moment suggesting that he has not got the fullest sympathy with the Irish manufacturers, but I should like to put this aspect of the matter before him. In other countries, industries are more highly developed, and they have advanced more than they have advanced in this country, but in spite of what anybody may think, there is a constant advance going on. It may not be very apparent, but Irish manufacturers are slowly advancing in fields that are allied to their present undertakings.
I can imagine somebody—for the sake of argument, let us say, some foreign manufacturer—approaching the Minister and saying to him: "There are no imitation carved mouldings manufactured in this country; I am prepared to lay down a plan and I want you to make these a reserved commodity." The Minister, with absolute sincerity, might, having examined the case, say "I will make it a reserved commodity" and he might take the requisite steps to have this matter published and he might give that manufacturer the protection he sought. Probably the minute that manufacturer started to put that type of moulding on the market here, some Irish moulding manufacturer would come to the Minister and say "We could have manufactured those," and the Minister would say to him "You saw what was published in the official guide," to which the manufacturer might reply "I am afraid I do not read the official guide every few days and you have done me an injustice."
There is another aspect of that case which I should like to put to the Minister. Suppose an Irish manufacturer here sees a foreign manufacturer about to stake out a claim in what he regards as the legitimate field of extension of his existing enterprises and suppose he comes to the Minister and says "You are going to give this foreign manufacturer a monopoly of part of the business I could undertake". The Minister might say to him "You have not undertaken it up to this and it is only this man's arrival that has brought you into the field." The Irish manufacturer would probably say "My resources are strained to bursting point and I have only been able to undertake this manufacture in a tentative way in order to preserve my legitimate field of extension for future years." It seems to me that along those lines in respect of what I might describe as the borderline cases, there is a whole field of enterprises in respect of which, if they are treated as reserved commodities, the manufacturers of this country will be done a grave injustice by the limitation of their field of operations for the future. It may be argued that they are unenterprising: that they do not read the official guide; and that they came forward only at the eleventh hour. Perhaps they did not recognise the commodity which they proposed to manufacture under the designation given to it in the official publication. There are all sorts of grounds for misunderstanding such as I have mentioned and I would suggest to the Minister that, looked at from that point of view, this section may quite easily become a two-edged sword that will do as much damage here as it gives help in another direction. As I have said before, there is no question about some of the very large commodities like cement but certainly, in other directions, there is a very broad field for extension for the Irish manufacturer, which may quite easily be staked out by enterprising foreigners coming in here. I think the Minister appreciates some of the difficulties that arise with respect to cases such as I have tried to put forward. I could mention a number of other concrete cases but the one illustration is sufficient to show the line along which I see difficulty. I would ask the Minister very carefully to consider this section.
I merely mentioned the case of cement because it is a commodity of the kind I have in mind in respect of which there is already legislation and legislation of a kind that would not have been necessary if this part of this Bill had been law at the time the Cement Bill was introduced. I think we have got that ship very near harbour by this, but I do not think we would ever have got within sight of shore if we had not that legislation on the Statute Book. It hit a few rocks on its passage but it is keeping afloat still. It is not intended that this section of the Bill should do any injustice to any Irish manufacturer. It is clear from the wording of it that an order cannot be made in respect of any commodity which any Irish manufacturer is producing. Deputy Dockrell's point, however, is that an order may limit the field of operation of some manufacturer engaged in the production of kindred commodities but not actually engaged in the production of the commodity in respect of which the order is made.
There is a device by which we could protect the interests of the manufacturers, which I have been considering, but which I am not anxious to adopt. I think it could very well be fashioned, and would enable any manufacturer or any person in Saorstát Eireann, who alleged that he was engaged in the manufacture of the commodity in respect of which the Order was made, or who alleged that the making of the Order was going to be prejudicial to his interests to appeal to some court on these grounds against the making of the Order, and to enable him to prevent the Order being made if he satisfies the court that he is either "engaged in the manufacture of the commodity concerned to a substantial extent," or some such words, or that the making of the Order is going prejudicially to affect the business in which he is engaged. A device of that kind would I think protect the interests of a manufacturer if it was felt that his interests were going to be adversely affected by the enactment of this Part of the Bill. I do not think they will be. The whole purport of part of the Bill is so clear that one could not contemplate an Order being made in relation to some such commodity as cement, which is distinct from other commodities, and which no one makes as a side line, or as a sort of development of existing business, and which could only be made on the scale on which it is required to be made in this country, when very substantial capital had been subscribed for the installation of the necessary equipment. I have, however, made a suggestion which might be considered, and if there is a necessity for a safeguard in the matters to which they have referred, that suggestion might be adopted to meet their purpose in the form of an amendment on the Report Stage.
I do not think the Minister has really answered the question I put to him. He has said to people on this side of the House that if they feel there is any danger about the situation they could put down an amendment. The Minister must realise that there is a very real danger, in what I call the legitimate extension of existing manufacturers' field over here. For instance, I can imagine the introduction of mass-production methods, for the sake of argument, to non-ferrous castings which would lead to the opening up and the development of a whole series of articles which are not now made here. The Minister says quite rightly that there could be no danger over that. But there is a grave danger in the legitimate extension into fields that are bordering on the manufacture of commodities which a manufacturer may at present be making. The Minister appears to appreciate that point. I think that is the kernel of the objection to this section. The Minister should really undertake to consider that aspect of the question very carefully. I mentioned that a manufacturer might come forward with the case that that was his legitimate field. How far would the Minister meet that by saying: "I have no power to help you?" That would not do. How does the Minister propose to deal with that aspect of the situation?
The Deputy's point is that some manufacturer engaged in the production of a commodity, of a nature similar to the commodity made as a reserved commodity, might say that he had intended at a future date to engage in the production of the reserved commodity as an extension of his existing business. I think we could easily devise machinery by which, when notice of intention to make the Order is given, that manufacturer could come forward with that contention, and, if he established it, provide that the Order will be postponed until the manufacturer concerned could carry out the extension, if he really intended to do so. There should be power to make the Order at the end of that period if the manufacturer failed to undertake the development in the interval. That is something to which consideration could be given.
I am not going to repeat what I said. I gather that the Minister knows the danger, but is pretending not to see it. I think he sees a way out, but is not going to adopt it. I am not going to argue that point further. Running right through the Minister's statement is this: what he sees in the Bill and what he intends. I suggest that is completely irrelevant. He is creating a machine that will work in a certain way. That is what I want to provide against. It is not what he wishes to make out of this Bill; it is what a large number of people keenly interested—each industry interested in one individual thing in a way that the Minister cannot be interested—will try to make out of it, whether natives or foreigners. Foreigners can bring pressure to bear as well as natives in this matter. It is not necessary for the Minister to say: "I only foresee one or two commodities. I do not see any by-product—if I might use that expression—being ruled out under this Commodity Order." That may be the Minister's intention, but he is creating a machine that is going to work, not as he wishes but, according to the laws of the machine. That is what I am afraid he does not foresee.
The Minister has thrown a very considerable amount of cold water on his own proposal. Indeed, so well he might, because, stripped of the dangers that have been referred to, and the difficulties that will arise when the people engaged propose to manufacture, there is the beautiful simplicity of the scheme that is supposed to deal with big things. The Minister had better apply this to things that are coming rather than to things that have come. For that reason we have been able to find out that five different manufacturers are to set themselves up in this country, but it is not known where the factories will be. We can have it possible under this Bill for the Minister to come along on, say, the 21st of the month, if it is not a Sunday, and say "Where is the slave with a soul so dead who thinks that we cannot make our own buttons?" and buttons become a reserved commodity, and no agricultural labourer down the country can put a "cnaipín" into his "báinín" without being held up under the Minister's Order.
The Minister said he is going to deal with little things. At least, he did not say that in so many words, but that is the beautiful simplicity of his scheme. A person who is a non-national can be brought in here without a halfpenny Irish capital and handed over a monopoly for buttons. As I say, that is the beautiful simplicity of the scheme. The Minister got the idea into his head, because he worked out a scheme for cement. Surely, if the Minister is thinking in terms of big and important things, which would be a very necessary adjunct to our general industrial economy here, and is anxious to see them fully and properly established, established in such a way that they will last, he ought to give greater warning to the public at large, apart altogether from the Dáil, than the four days which he proposes for matters like this. Even if the decision is taken by the Executive Council it should be taken after a report from some technical body or from some body other than a purely political body, by some body like the old Tariff Commission. It seems to me that the Minister is glossing over what he has in his mind, if he has anything in his mind, because he was invited here on a previous occasion to give the Dáil some information as to the type of commodities that would be manufactured here. After all, if there are big gaps in our industrial fabric here, the fact that we mention them in this House and discuss them, to some extent, is not going to prejudice their future development.
Quite.
It may be very easy to prevent their getting into dangerous hands in a semi-secret way, or to prevent commitments being entered into in a semi-secret way with individuals whose experience, trustworthiness or capacity, to carry on the industry and make a success of it, have not been subjected to any close kind of examination. Personally, I would vote absolutely for the wiping out of Part III of the Bill until we hear more from the Minister about the circumstances than we have heard. I think it is absurd to put a power like this into his hands when we know so little about what he wants to use it for.
It is a power that cannot be used without the consent of the Dáil.
On four days' notice.
I shall make it longer, if the Deputy wishes.
The Minister will come before the House and ask where is the slave with soul so dead as to think that this country should not be able to make its own balloons.
We have not succeeded in making them yet.
Is there a single Deputy who would not follow the Minister when he throws that taunt at him, that we are a free country and that we ought to make our own balloons?
Would the Deputy be influenced by that?
I would not.
I see.
I would not be afraid to go into the Lobby against the Minister.
He is a very superior person.
Unfortunately the effective part of the House, which is the majority behind the Minister, would be afraid to stand up against that kind of taunt.
Not at all.
The Minister gets examples of that every day.
No, he does not.
The Minister is not serious or at any rate he cannot take us for a moment as believing that he is serious or that he has anything in his mind but some kind of scheme which he is not prepared to reveal in daylight. If he asks us to think that he can plan to develop the foundations of vital parts of our industrial programme, by taking power to come into the Dáil on three or four days' notice to get a resolution passed saying that nobody shall henceforth make a particular commodity, he is asking us to believe something that is utterly absurd.
If the Deputy's objection is that it should not be done on three or four days' notice, I am quite prepared to consider an amendment specifying a longer period.
The Minister knows perfectly well that that is not the sole objection. He objects to discuss certain examples in this House because the discussion might inflict damage on certain interests. He dare not mention these things, he says, but he knows very well that they are being canvassed all over the city as industries that may be set up under this Bill. The detailed plans are discussed occasionally. I think the Minister is creating a lot of trouble for himself and undoubtedly a great danger for the future.
On this section I should like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the possibility of one of these industries developing an export trade. If so, there are certain paragraphs in the section that would seem to make that difficult. For instance, if you take paragraph (e) the Minister has power to affix a condition specifying the maximum quantity of the reserved commodity which can be manufactured at the factory. If he avails of that power, and that one of these firms were to get an unexpected order from another country, the firm would be in a difficulty. The firm has got to say: "I cannot tell you whether I can deal with the order until I have seen the Minister to ascertain whether he is prepared to alter that condition." There are two or three of these paragraphs, as a matter of fact, that do not seem to take into account the possibility of an export trade. For instance, under paragraph (g) the Minister has power to make a condition, fixing the maximum price. It might be "prices." I do not know whether the word "price" in law covers "prices." Obviously there might be different grades of a commodity which would be sold at different prices and "maximum prices" would seem to be more correct than "maximum price." Does the Minister propose to fix maximum prices at which goods of this kind can be exported? It seems to me that these conditions point that way. I hardly think the Minister desires to do more than to protect Saorstát citizens. He does not insist, I presume, in protecting citizens of Belgium or Holland or Britain against extravagant prices of the manufacturers in this country.
The further question arises whether maximum prices would be more than wholesale prices. Does he, also, intend to fix retail prices? In the case of leading commodities sold at present, and some that I can visualise as coming under this section of the Act, the manufacturer fixes the retail prices as well as the wholesale prices. For instance, if the refining of oil is considered as an industry under this section, in that case, if the custom that prevails at present were followed, the manufacturer would fix both the retail and wholesale prices. If the Minister has these two things in mind then the paragraph should be enlarged I think. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he has considered these aspects of the question.
We have, in relation to some industries in the course of being established, or which may be established, always contemplated an export trade development at some stage. The powers taken under Section 22 relate to the conditions which attach to a licence, and there are powers that may be necessary, having regard to Part 3 of the Bill, to protect, in certain cases, the interests of the consumer of reserved commodities of that sort. There is no obligation to impose all these conditions. There is power under sub-section (2), Section 23 to vary the conditions on the application of the licensee, if the circumstances seem to necessitate it. Power is taken to fix the manufacturers' prices. If a manufacturer sells that commodity to a wholesaler to be distributed to retailers or himself sells to the retailer, we do not put on him the responsibility to ensure that reasonable profits only are taken by the persons who come in between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer. Special machinery has been established and is being operated in order to deal with that matter. Where the manufacturer himself sells retail, then the price that would be subject to regulation would be the retail price. Where the manufacturer sells at a wholesale price, and fixes the retail price, it is the wholesale price that will be subject to regulation. If there was reason to believe that the retail price allowed a higher margin of profit, that would come under another Act and not under a licence having such conditions attached.
I presume Section 22 means that you would get people putting up more than one factory. I quite agree they need not exercise the powers so far as the maximum is concerned. I take it for granted that more than one factory would be contemplated, and that makes it necessary to assume the power.
Such as in regard to the flour industry.
I was wondering would the home manufacturer have the full market.
It might be we would have two factories and it would be necessary to have the two factories under one control. That is our difficulty in regard to the cement industry. There is room for two factories, one of which would be much more profitable than another for in one part there would be a concentrated market and in the other it would be scattered. If we allowed one manufacturer to come in and build one factory only we never would get the second but if we make it a condition that he must build a second if the market required it, it would be different.
Does the Minister not consider in regard to paragraph (g) that with a stated maximum price to Saorstát citizens only those reading the Act would probably get the impression that there would be no restriction on development of an export trade?
I would have no objection to such an amendment at all.
