Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Mar 1933

Vol. 16 No. 13

Control of Manufactures Regulations, 1932.

Sir John Keane

I move:

That the Control of Manufactures Regulations, 1932, laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 13th December, 1932, pursuant to Section 12 of the Control of Manufactures Act, 1932, shall be and are hereby annulled.

I want to assure the House at the outset that it is not the intention or expectation that the House will agree to this motion, but, as Senators know, it affords me the only proper constitutional opportunity of raising the very important issues involved in this Order. The House will remember that, with great difficulty, it persuaded the Government to accept, or forced on the Government, an amendment which finds expression in this Order. It was an amendment to the effect that the Minister must by Order state the grounds to which he will have regard in the issue of licences. In fact, I would suggest that these reasons strike at the root of the whole measure. You have now the reasons stated in this Order and I suggest that they must occasion very considerable alarm. They fall under a number of heads. The first head to which the Minister has regard is whether the requirements in connection with new manufacture licences are already met or likely to be met by existing concerns. Picture yourself a Minister met with a problem of that kind— having to say to a person coming in here with, perhaps, a scientific process capable of unforeseen development, involving matters, perhaps, which deal with a new invention. No Minister could posibly say that the requirements as to those proposed processes are likely to be met or are met by existing concerns. That regulation can have only one effect—the effect of limiting enterprise and the mere revelation of such an outlook will deter people from seeking to establish business in this country. I heard it stated once of a man that he was so clever he could unscrew the inscrutable. That might apply to any Minister who would attempt, except in the very simplest of cases, to determine an issue of that kind. It displays an utter ignorance of the unforeseen forces that operate in business. The whole essence of enterprise is the things that you cannot see or cannot weigh. If all the cards are on the table would not everything be so simple? It is the unforeseen things which are always there, the new things which suddenly arise, and which cannot be foreseen, that justify the free play and flexibility of private enterprise, and that are the driving force behind initiative and spontaneous endeavour.

Then as to popular taste, how can the Minister possibly assess popular taste? A man comes in to deal in new fashions. Does the Minister suggest that the present standard of fashion should be stereotyped and is sufficiently and adequately met, and that if a person comes in with new ideas he should be met merely with the attitude that what is already there is good enough and that what our people have amply satisfies for the future the requirements of the consumers? What about scientific development? How can the Minister foresee that and in considering an application for a licence gauge the potentialities of scientific development? It can only mean stereotyping the present conditions on a grand drab basis and destroying all the imaginative qualities which go to make civilisation worth while. It also involves, if I may say so, the exclusion of brains, because no person with brains is going to come in and submit to the interrogation that a condition of that kind involves.

The next thing is that the Minister is to have regard to the ownership of capital. I suggest that what we want is all the capital we can get from anywhere—from China, Japan or Timbuctoo. What we are suffering from is a lack of capital. The Minister may know of a recent enterprise to raise capital in this country for a clothing company by private subscription. He probably knows that the people of this country were not too ready, in spite of the economic outlook, to come to the assistance of the new enterprise. What we want is people of enterprise to come in and fertilise industry, increase the consuming power, and make things cheaper and more abundant. That is the basis of all progress. This attitude of having regard to the ownership of capital is reactionary in the extreme.

Then we have the next thing: the ability or resources of the applicant. Perhaps the Minister may remember the case of Lever Brothers. The first founder of that industry started in a small shop. Who could then possibly foretell what that was going to develop into? Who could gauge the abilities or the resources of that pioneer? In the same way, a person will come along with very little to show. He has got brains and enterprise—things no Minister or anyone else can assess—yet he is to be examined on that basis. There again, I suggest, the whole attitude is utterly reactionary and against the free play of enterprise, which we all want and which is the only basis on which a country and its civilisation can prosper.

Then the Minister is to have regard to the locality of the works. That again is an intolerable condition to impose on anyone who knows better than any Minister can know. A person of enterprise comes along and he has to put the works where, in his opinion, he can do best. Why should he be limited except by the limitation implied in town planning and conditions of that kind? It is his own money and he is prepared to risk it. Why should he not be allowed to go where the law allows and not where the Minister in his wisdom suggests he should go?

Then again the Minister is to have regard to the amount of local employment that is likely to be afforded. Throughout all this, the person who seems to be disregarded is the consumer. The national employer is purported to be protected under the measure and the worker is purported to be protected, but the poor consumers, who are far more numerous, seem to be entirely neglected. If a person comes in with a modern process that demands little labour, why should he be debarred? Presumably, the effect of a process largely mechanical, is that the goods will be produced more cheaply. Should not that be the object of all enterprise and efficiency? I am reminded in this respect of a resolution that the Waterford County Council, I think, tried to pass, in which they called upon the county surveyor to do all the work without machinery. The county surveyor suggested that the farmers should do all their work with spades. We are to try to regulate and stop the march of progress. That is an attitude, no doubt well meant in the interest of labour, which must in the long run destroy enterprise and react on the consumer.

Then the origin of the plant and equipment is another question. A man of enterprise who wants to come in is not going to be limited or affected by the origin of his plant. He may require highly technical machinery. He has to get it where he can and should be allowed to get it where he can and not be debarred, if he wishes to come in for the good of the country, and incidentally for his own gain. Anyone who comes in here to spend money is also for the good of the country.

As if all these conditions were not enough, the Minister must have regard to the general economic conditions of the country. Lest he left any loophole by which he might not be able to refuse a licence or tie up the licensee sufficiently, he must have regard to the general economic conditions of the country. The Minister for Agriculture not long ago was making sport of Senator Counihan's amendment in which he had a lot about general conditions or otherwise. I consider the Minister is open to that charge here. Where he has not specific power, he is taking general power.

I raise this question on broad lines and as a warning of the tendencies in Government circles towards enterprise. It is because it is so serious that I have raised it. People who have brains and energy may want to make money. Undoubtedly nobody is going into business except to make money. They are not going in for the good of other people. That is an attitude that I find voiced in certain quarters, that people are going into business for the good of the community. That is only incidental. They are risking their money for their own good and for profit and you cannot get away from that. I would strongly advise the Minister, when people come along with mealy-mouthed talk of patriotism and doing things for the good of the people, that he should be very suspicious of them. Charity begins at home, and what is left over after they have their share will be for the good of the people. The more people you can get to risk their money the better. Capital may be lost. That is the way it is always. All the amenities of life, such as wireless and cinemas, have all been the result of enterprise and money risked, and a large amount of employment given in the process.

I raise this point and I think it is very serious because if these licences are going to be given or withheld in the spirit that this Order implies, it will be a very serious day for the country. The country will go back to a low, drab level of existence, deprived of progress and of all stimulus to enterprise. For that reason I ask the House at least to give an opportunity to the Minister to make his case in favour of this Order.

Miss Browne

I second the motion. I would like to refer to an industry which has been of enormous benefit to the country. Where would that industry be if it were dependent on the capital raised at home? I refer to the sugar beet industry. Capital to the extent of half a million pounds was required. The sum of £10,000 was, I think, the very most that could be raised in Ireland for the starting of it. If the present Government were in power at the time the industry was started, well there can hardly be any doubt that it would never have been established here. As a matter of fact it required all the ingenuity of the ex-Minister for Agriculture to induce a foreign capitalist to put his money into the industry. Instead of hindering him everything possible had to be done to assure him that the industry would be a success. If that assurance had not been given then, the foreign capital that was used to start that industry would never have come into the country. We were told, of course, on one occasion here that that particular industry was only a white elephant. I am glad that Senator Sir John Keane has moved this motion and I hope the House will support it.

Mr. Comyn

I am very glad Senator Sir John Keane opened his speech by saying that he did not expect that his motion would be carried. I am sure he hopes that it will not be carried, and I am confident that he will not press it to a division. The seconder of the motion has given us as an example the sugar beet factory. Surely it was established with the concurrence of the Minister for the time being. I am thoroughly in favour of these regulations. When I saw Senator Sir John Keane's motion on the Order Paper I thought he had completely changed his attitude and was going to become a downright obstructionist, because his motion is that all the regulations, not merely one, shall be annulled.

Sir John Keane

I had no alternative. I was not able to do it piecemeal. The procedure only allows one to do it in globo.

Mr. Comyn

But the statute only allows one regulation to be annulled at a time. I take it now that the Senator only wants to express again what he has frequently so eloquently expressed in this House, his desire for a high and very advanced degree of civilisation. That being so, it rests upon us to defend these regulations which have been framed by the Minister under the Act of Parliament.

As I understand it, the object of the Act of Parliament is to secure that the brains and ability of the Irish people should be seconded by the knowledge and experience which Senator Sir John Keane says can be got from abroad. We want to create such a condition of things as will give our own brainy people the knowledge and experience in arts, crafts and manufactures which the Senator so much desires. That is one of the objects of the Act which was passed by this House and of the regulations framed in accordance with it and, if I may say so, strictly in accordance with the Act. The regulations do not go in any single respect beyond the powers conferred by the Act of Parliament. Another object was to secure that in any industries established in this country the capital or a great part of the capital—the majority of the shares—should be held in Irish hands. Well, now is that wrong? If it is it has been adopted in almost every civilised country in the world except Great Britain which commands the trade and commerce of the world, and still commands the seas of the world. Senator Sir John Keane will not deny that. It is adopted certainly in every country where industry and manufactures are in a backward condition. I think it is a good thing and that it is certainly worth trying. I would very much like to have not the opposition of Senator Sir John Keane but his support for a trial of that principle.

The Senator objects only to certain portions of these regulations. The first portion of the regulations that he objects to is that the Minister, when an application is made to him for the setting up of a business to carry out a certain process, should have some control of the operations of the foreigner coming in here to conduct that process. What does the Minister ask? Just this: that he should consider this question:

The extent to which the existing and probable future requirements of the public in Saorstát Eireann in respect of the process sought to be authorised by the licence are sufficiently met by business lawfully established in Saorstát Eireann at the date of the application for the licence or will probably be sufficiently met by businesses which may be established in Saorstát Eireann after such date by persons entitled to perform such processes without a licence under the Act.

The argument that I intend to use will, I hope, meet with the approval of Senator Sir John Keane. The Senator is always reasonable although this motion of his did not seem to me to be reasonable. Now it may be that, in regard to a certain process of manufacture, a man in a small way of business and with small capital would be quite competent to conduct that process in this country, yet a combine with their agents and with people giving them information might come along for the purpose of destroying that native industry. They might come along and say: "We want a licence to conduct that process in the Free State and we will produce the article much cheaper."

Sir John Keane

That is the point.

Mr. Comyn

Yes, for a while they might produce the article much cheaper than it could be produced by a small factory in this country, but when the small factory was crushed out, as happens frequently in the case of the operations of these combines, then the price of the commodity resulting from that process could be increased and increased to such an extent that the real civilisation of this country would suffer because we would not be able to afford to pay for the article.

Sir John Keane

Would the Senator give instances where combines have acted in that way?

Mr. Comyn

Yes, several.

Sir John Keane

Would the Senator give some?

Mr. Comyn

I do not want to delay the House giving examples of all the cases in which combines have come in and sold below cost price for a while so that they could sell at more than cost price and at more than a fair price when they had destroyed small industries. My friend Senator Johnson, who knows these things much better than I do, has given me, just on the tip of his tongue, one example. What about the Wexford shipping? That is not exactly a process. It is more than a process.

Mr. Johnson

Ask Senator Counihan.

Mr. Comyn

Senator Counihan is here.

Miss Browne

What about the economic war and all the ships that are tied up in Wexford?

Mr. Comyn

I am afraid I am being drawn out of order by Senator Miss Browne. Well, I will not deal with that part of the question further. I say that if there is a person in this country who is making arrangements for the carrying out of a process of manufacture and if the Minister considers that there is a reasonable chance that he will be able to carry out that process, the Minister at least should have discretion to decide that question.

The next matter is this. Senator Sir John Keane takes exception to the second clause here, which says:

In the event of the business in the course or as part of which it is proposed that the process sought to be authorised by the licence shall be performed being owned by two or more individuals,

the Minister is entitled to consider the extent to which the capital invested in such business is in the beneficial ownership of nationals of Saorstát Eireann.

Is not that perfectly right and reasonable—that the capital employed in a certain process should be in the beneficial ownership of nationals of Saorsát Eireann? Surely, if the Minister so thinks fit, it should be held by people who live within the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann. Otherwise, you may throw the ports of this country wide to the world, to the enterprise of the world, and to the combines of the world.

Sir John Keane

That is right.

Mr. Comyn

Senator Sir John Keane says that is right. I do not think it is right. I think, if the sentiment expressed by the Senator was the sentiment of the majority of the people of this country, it would be quite impossible for us to rise above the condition of simply herding the cattle that eat the grass that grows in this country. If Senator Sir John Keane is satisfied with that, of course he is welcome to his opinion. But I do not believe that he is satisfied with that except for the purposes of argument.

Sir John Keane

I think that our people are quite capable of facing world competition. I am only asking that they should be allowed to do it.

Mr. Comyn

We are not capable at the moment of facing world competition with our resources undeveloped and with the abilities of our people undeveloped.

Sir John Keane

Why?

Mr. Comyn

With the want of experience and with the want of knowledge of manufacturing processes from which we suffer. Nobody knows better than Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Bagwell and others on the opposite benches that manufacturing skill is first of all acquired and secondly is hereditary. Why is it that certain manufacturers are localised in certain parts of England? Why is the steel industry centralised around Sheffield, the woollen industry in Yorkshire, and other industries in certain other districts in England? The reason is that not only have the people great natural ability and great acquired skill, but they also have hereditary skill in these matters. We must acquire skill in manufactures. Until we acquire that skill we will not be able to face world competition. Will we ever be able to face it? The answer is whether in certain industries we will have sufficient output to enable us to instal the proper machinery which will enable us to acquire the necessary skill. I think we are perfectly right in securing that, so far as certain industries are concerned, the Minister whom we trust should have a discretion as to whether the capital employed in that industry should be in the main Irish capital or not.

That is the third objection made by Senator Sir John Keane. He objects to giving the Minister authority to determine the locality of the works. Will Senator Sir John Keane contend that there should not be some regulation as to the locality in which particular industries are carried on? Would he like to have a tannery in his demesne?

Sir John Keane

That is a matter of town planning.

Mr. Comyn

No, I am not speaking of town planning. The point is whether the Minister is to have authority to determine, in some degree, the locality in which an industry ought to be carried on. I think that he should have such authority for the strongest reason. It is desirable in the development of this State, and in what I might call the reconstruction of this country, that certain industries should be located in the West of Ireland, in which part of the country I have a particular interest. Certainly the locality is a matter of the greatest concern. I for one would be altogether opposed to having all the industries congregated around the City of Dublin, and I think it is a perfectly wise and reasonable precaution for the Minister to take, that, in the event of a new process being carried out, say, in regard to iron or steel, he should be entitled to say: "We have iron ore here—the best in the world perhaps. We have iron ore in the West of Ireland. If you want to manufacture iron articles, well then you must go to the West. You must go to the banks of the River Shannon or to Arigna or to some place like that. You cannot set up your works here at the North Wall or at the South Wall."

Miss Browne

Senator Sir John Keane could tell you about setting them up in Wexford.

Mr. Comyn

Well, I did not know there was very much iron ore in Wexford. I should be very glad to see them in Wexford because I know that very nice people come from Wexford. The next objection by Senator Sir John Keane is this: he objected to the fact that the Minister should have a discretion to consider the question of "the extent to which the grant of the licence is calculated to promote employment in Saorstát Eireann." That is in clause (v). I think that is opposition gone mad. Surely, it is a matter of the gravest concern to consider the question of employment in this country. Why should he not be anxious to have greater employment in this country? And then again, the next clause to which there is objection is:

The extent to which the materials for the construction of the works, the plant and equipment and apparatus of the works, the raw materials and articles used for the performance of the process sought to be authorised by the licence will be produced or made in Saorstát Eireann.

Well, if I were a Minister I should like to have the power to consider that question, and I would promise Senator Sir John Keane that I would exercise that power to the fullest extent.

Sir John Keane

You would not get them to come.

Mr. Comyn

Get what to come— the materials? I hope Senator Sir John Keane will not interrupt me. I am talking now of whether the materials can be supplied in Saorstát Eireann. Surely, if they can, the Minister should have power to say to the gentlemen with brains and genius, as Senator Sir John Keane thinks— surely, the Minister should be entitled to say: "Now, you know of this process, of course, but we have the materials here and we want to know will you use these materials." But Senator Sir John Keane will not have that. He would not ask that of the adventurer—I am not using the word "adventurer" in an invidious sense— but that man coming in here is not to be asked any questions, according to Senator Sir John Keane. He is not to be asked for his papers.

The next matter to which Senator Sir John Keane objects is this:

The effect of the grant of the licence on the general economic interests of Saorstát Eireann.

Senator Sir John Keane will not allow the Minister to consider the effect of the grant of the licence on the general economic interests of Saorstát Eireann. Does he propose to give the Ministry any power at all? Does he propose that Ministers should hold their hands, and whenever a foreigner comes, saying he has clear knowledge and ability and great genius they are to welcome him with open arms and not to consider the economic and financial interests of their own country? As I said at the beginning I am very glad Senator Sir John Keane, who is always reasonable, said that he really hoped this resolution would not pass. But he really wanted to make a speech and, if I may say so, it was a very good speech. We have heard it in various forms, expressed in different ways but it is the same idea. I dissent from Senator Sir John Keane in this. I do not agree with him that all civilisation, all virtue and all accomplishments come from abroad. I think we are capable in this little country of ours of developing a good many of the social virtues. We have done so in the past and, if we get an opportunity of developing within reasonable lines, and in harmony with each other—I do not say that a controversy like this for one moment disturbs that harmony—we will be able to develop our powers rapidly and to the full extent. I thoroughly approve of the regulations and I thoroughly approve of the Bill by which they were authorised. I hope Senator Sir John Keane will not press his amendment.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

When Senator Sir John Keane was moving this resolution he said that he did so for the purpose of giving me an opportunity of making a statement in justification of the regulations I have laid down. Having heard his speech, however, I am not quite clear what kind of statement he wants me to make. His speech, if I may say so, was directed against the spirit of the Act, and not rather to the regulations. As far as the Act is concerned I have only one thing to say. Within a very short time we had a general election and at the period of a general election the leaders of political parties expose their hearts to the public. The associated manufacturers of this State wanted to have a look at the hearts of the leaders of the various parties with regard to measures of this kind. They went to the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party, and of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, in particular, and asked them if they would give an undertaking that if returned to office the Control of Manufactures Act would be operated and utilised in order to achieve the aims behind the introduction of the Act. They got that undertaking from the leaders of both Parties, and the acknowledgment that the Act was necessary in the national interests. An assurance was given them that, when the election was over, no matter what Party came back to power, the Act was going to remain on the Statute Book and was going to be operated. The rapid conversion of those who had opposed the passage of the Act in the Dáil and Seanad was in itself a remarkable tribute to the wisdom of those who framed the measure in the first instance.

As to the regulations. The first one requires us to have regard to the extent to which the class of goods which foreign firms apply for licences to make are being supplied, or are likely to be supplied, by firms entitled to manufacture them without a licence. In relation to that particular regulation the Senator expressed the opinion that national damage was going to be done because of the fact that I was not a prophet. He asked how was it possible for a Minister to foresee future developments. I do not think it is necessary that we should foresee future developments, but present developments and conditions. If a foreign manufacturer comes to me and says: "I have not got at the moment any new process or any new invention but, if I am allowed into your country it is not at all unlikely that I will invent some new device which will result in the reorganisation of all the industries in the world." In these circumstances I should be entitled to ask him for his credentials, and if he could not produce credentials, I should, at least, be entitled to say: "You are not getting a licence on the strength of the statements you make. We are only interested in what you are doing at present." If they can do something which will be a benefit to us, which will add to our industrial equipment and organisation, and increase the possibility of producing wealth, they will not be refused licences. But if they are to enter into competition here, which was only going to mean that internal competition was going to be intensified, that no increase in productivity could result, and that, at the worst the business would be transferred to some other manufacturer, then I think we should refuse the licence.

The Senator asked if present fashions were to be standardised. I do not think it is necessary to get in foreign manufactures in order to ensure development in fashions or in anything else. If the women of this country want to wear trousers, as the women of America are reported to be doing, I am quite sure there are Irish manufacturers capable of producing them. If the demand is there it will be met by quite a large number of firms now existing.

Senator Miss Browne tried to make capital with regard to the sugar beet factory. No argument can be based upon that. She stated that in 1924 the Minister for Agriculture achieved something great when he induced a foreign firm to come in and establish a beet sugar factory here. I would like to advise Senator Miss Browne to take Senator Sir John Keane's advice, to reverse it and then to apply it. Foreign manufacturers do not come here because they love us. They do not come here for any other purpose except to make profit. In fact, the particular foreign firm associated with the Carlow factory was guaranteed conditions which enabled them to realise a profit 48 per cent. per annum on their capital. That was a very strong inducement. Anyone could get foreigners to come here by offering a subsidy which is in excess of the total amount realised to date by the British tariffs on Irish exports of all kinds. An inducement of that kind no doubt would get any manufacturers in the world to come in. That has nothing to do with this question, because there are certain industries in respect of which it is undoubtedly correct to say that we will have to avail of foreign technical advice. In relation to such industries it is not at all unlikely that we will not merely permit foreigners to establish themselves here, but actually invite them to do so.

With regard to beet sugar I hope we will be able to submit proposals to the Dáil and Seanad before very long, and when they are submitted it will be possible to see whether or not another line of action than that taken in 1924 would not have achieved the same result at a much lower cost.

The next regulation relates to capital. Senator Sir John Keane said this was a deterrent to the industrial development of the country, and excluded brains. The Senator said that no foreign firm would ever submit to the intolerable conditions imposed upon it. The most effective answer to that is that we have, to-day, 157 applications from foreign industrial firms for licences to establish factories in this country. Twenty-seven of these applications have been submitted in the prescribed manner and, perhaps, with one or two exceptions, they are likely to be granted; the others are under examination in my Department. When I look over the list of names, and remember what the Senator said, I wonder if it is true that these people have no brains. Some of them are from very eminent firms with names that are world famous. They certainly succeeded in making money and, if that is an indication of ability, they have ability. Senator Sir John Keane says no one with brains would ever attempt to apply for a licence having regard to these regulations. I suppose I must consider that these people have no brains, and that we would be better off without them. Perhaps I shall have to reconsider the applications we have had in the light of the Senator's statement.

We have here another regulation that requires that we should consider "the ability and resources of the applicant for the licence to perform efficiently the process sought to be authorised by the licence." The Senator talked of the origin of Lever Brothers. He referred to a young man with brains and no money who might become the leader of a great industrial organisation which might spring up under his guidance if he got a chance. Is there any harm in suggesting to these young men with brains and no money that they should try their ability in their own country first—that they should try them on the dog rather than upon us. If there arrives at Dun Laoghaire, or at Cobh, young men with plenty of brains and no money they are the type about which we have to notify the Civic Guard, who, very often, notify them to get out of the country as quickly as possible.

The Senator next referred to a regulation which dealt with "the extent to which the granting of a licence is calculated to promote employment in Saorstát Eireann." He did not object to that, but he argued, I think, that employment would be available in any case, and that it did not much matter, in the long run, whether the industry was established by an Irish or a foreign company as the effect upon work would be the same. To some extent that is true, but only to some extent. If it is possible under the law, for a highly organised, highly capitalised and long established industrial organisation to establish itself here, to the detriment of those who are here already in a small way, endeavouring to build up their business, there is a feeling of insecurity which will prevent development in that home industry. During the last ten years industrial development was delayed here, far more by the absence of legislation of this kind, than by the absence of tariffs, because those who could invest money in Irish industry felt that no return for their money was possible. They felt that when they were making a successful impression upon the market in Great Britain and elsewhere they would lose that market again by prices being cut and other methods, and that they were being driven out of their markets and deprived of the benefit of their investments. It was that feeling of insecurity that delayed the development end in this country, and it is to remove that feeling of insecurity that we have brought in these regulations. Although it is technically correct, from the employment point of view, that it does not matter in the least whether an industry is established here by Irish or foreign owners, yet, in fact, without protection of this kind we might not get any Irish-owned, or foreign-owned firms, because if we took the line that either would do we would get neither.

The Senator then spoke, in general terms, about this legislation being designed to stop the march of progress, to exclude from this country technical development in industry that may develop elsewhere, and to keep Irish industry inefficient, out of date and behind developments abroad. I do not think that that is so at all, but, in certain circumstances, we might deliberately decide to use the powers given us to do that. I think it is without doubt that nine-tenths of the ills the world is suffering from to-day, arises from the fact that technological development has been many times more rapid than the development in social organisation. It is because men can invent machinery for production of goods much more efficiently than they can improve the methods of social organisation, that in their view what they advert to as new and cheaper production would cause social good instead of social evil. There are two ways in which you can stop that; by slowing down on speed and speeding up on social developments. I submit it is impossible with our present methods of Government, and other matters, to speed up the development of social organisation rapidly enough to overtake the development in technical matters, and, consequently, it may be, in the long run, the best thing for this country that we should slow down on technical development, that we should see that the man with the old machine is helped, rather than the new man with the new machine.

In the cigarette manufacturing concerns in this city there are machines capable of producing 1,000 cigarettes per minute. This rate of progress is guaranteed by the manufacturers of those machines. These machines are I think of recent invention. A few years ago these 1,000 cigarettes would be made by hand by male and female workers. Recently a new machine was put upon the market in the United States capable of producing 2,000 cigarettes per minute. If the manufacturers in this country decide to instal these machines they can displace one half of the people engaged in that particular branch of the industry. That is the result of technological development.

Is it desirable that we should exclude them until we get some social organisation here capable of providing that this invention is not going to occasion so much unemployment, disadvantage, and hardship until we are able to provide for those whose employment will be no longer required because of man's ingenuity in producing this new invention. Despite the fact that, on the whole, it is incorrect to say that the powers conferred by this Bill are likely to be utilised for excluding technical development of that kind, I say it is right that we should have powers to do that, having regard to the general considerations, having regard to the picture we get in our daily papers as to the effect that similar restriction is producing in other countries much more highly industrialised and wealthy than ours.

Mr. Dowdall

Before the discussion closes I would like to say a word in connection with one of the regulations issued by the Minister. Contrary to Senator Sir John Keane I hold the view that the regulations are such that too many outside competitors or manufacturers are allowed to come in. However that may be, I would ask the Minister, in relation to the likelihood of industrial potentiality, not to stress that too much, because a good many industries of enormous potentiality give no indication in their earlier stages of their future development. I shall take one industry which was established in the first instance here, the manufacture of pneumatic rubber tyres. I am perfectly certain that if we had had a home Government at that time this country would have benefitted and secured practically a monopoly of the manufacture of those tyres. Take also the manufacture of margarine. The first place in the United Kingdom in which margarine was manufactured was in Ireland. That industry employs in England to-day 10,000 people. Nobody could envisage when it was first produced here this enormous development. Accordingly I would ask the Minister, if an industry complies with his other requirements, not to scrutinise too closely this question of development, because nobody can foresee the full future development of some industries.

Sir John Keane

I shall be very brief in my reply. I quite appreciate the very fair way in which the Minister made his case. I think it is a great pleasure to meet him as a controversialist. I do not agree with him. I think our outlooks are fundamentally different but I see his ideal and I hope he will succeed in achieving it. I only hope, too, that he will not be a sadder and wiser man at the end of some years. I hope also that if he applies this policy, the people will not be sadder and poorer at the end of a certain period although they may be more national. I am fully in sympathy with his views on the question of limiting technical processes, but I would remind him that these technical processes were largely brought about by the fear of strike action on the part of the labour unions. If it had not been for that, I think a great deal more would be done by hand than has been done. When the Minister is applying his policy in the limitation of technical processes, I hope he will beware of the strike action of labour unions because that may be a very dangerous element.

Mr. Johnson

I once read that the devil was the author of all progress. I find that Senator Sir John Keane is a supporter of the proposition because he exaggerated——

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid, Senator I cannot allow you to intervene at this stage.

Mr. Johnson

I shall be very brief. He exaggerated in his first speech the importance of scientific development and showed how it might be a dangerous thing if we limited scientific development in any way. He later said that scientific development had arisen through the strike action of labour unions. He therefore was approving of strike action in his first speech.

Sir John Keane

I ask permission to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.