Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 1933

Vol. 16 No. 27

Public Business. - Cement (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig) (for Minister for Industry and Commerce)

For some time past the Government have been considering the question of providing our requirements in cement from factories set up in the Irish Free State, and we are interested in proceeding, at the earliest possible moment, with the setting up of these factories as part of our general industrial policy. As Senators know, the demand for cement has been increasing. Owing to the wide use of cement, and owing to extensive building programmes, not to speak of road works, which are in contemplation, and which may be carried out during coming years, the demand is likely to increase. We are in the fortunate position in this country that we have available at many points very large quantities of the raw materials necessary for the successful working of this industry. At the present time our capacity is something like 200,000 tons of cement per year, and it has been estimated that about two factories will be necessary of 100,000 tons capacity in each case, to supply the existing demand. That is supposing that our total requirements are supplied from home sources. If the demand for cement for various purposes continues to increase, as it has been increasing, it is possible that a third factory may be necessary. From the investigations and discussions which have taken place regarding this matter the Government feel that the persons responsible for the building of the factory, the proprietors, will endeavour to build at points where the demand for cement is likely to be considerable, so as to reduce transport costs. The price of cement, which is a very important matter in connection with the proposals in this Bill, is not ascertainable, at the moment, as a firm figure. We do not know that until we are granted the powers which we seek in the Bill. We are not in a position to say what the figure for cement is likely to be. To a great extent it will turn on the location of the factories. The proprietors and the people who are setting up the industry will have to take that matter closely into consideration. Even as regards power costs and labour costs we are not in a position to say what they are likely to be now, but we feel—and this is the reason we have brought in the Bill—that the Minister should have certain powers which will enable him to give to whomever he grants a licence to set up a factory or factories to carry on the business, without being threatened with an undue importation of cement at a much lower price.

We are in the position here at present that the Irish Free State is said to be one of the few free markets for cement, if not the only one. Nearly all other territories are divided up between the different cartels and monopolies and the result is that the price of cement in practically every other country is regulated by the manufacturers or by combines of manufacturers. In this country, we have benefited considerably, up to the present, by reason of the fact that we are a free market and that all these various syndicates are dumping—I think I may use the word—cement into the Irish Free State at a price much lower than the price in Great Britain at present and a price, which, although I have not gone into the details, I think I would be justified in describing as below the cost of production.

If we are to set up this cement industry in this country, I am afraid it would be impossible to fix the price of cement, therefore, at the price which rules at the present time. There will be an increase in price, but it is hoped that that increase will be gradual.

Under Section 12 of the Bill, the Minister lays down certain conditions appertaining to the granting of licences. I should say that the general scheme of the Bill is that the Minister should have power to grant licences to a manufacturer of cement to set up a factory in this country and also to give him power to grant licences for the importation of cement. It is considered that it will be necessary, while the factories are being built and the supply of cement is being obtained from home sources, to control the importation of cement. Therefore, broadly speaking, there are two considerable powers which the Minister is looking for under this Bill. One is the power to grant licences to manufacturers to set up factories for the production of cement and the other is to grant licences regulating the importation of cement.

With regard to the licence for the manufacture of cement, a section in the Bill, Section 12, lays down all the various matters in respect of which the Minister may attach conditions to a licence. He may, for example, attach conditions regarding the extent to which raw materials or articles necessary for the production of cement are secured from sources within the Irish Free State or regarding the extent to which he considers it advisable that nationals of the Irish Free State should be employed in these factories. He may also lay down conditions, somewhat in the same manner, Senators will remember, as were laid down in the Control of Manufactures Act, which, in this particular respect, this Bill follows: he may also lay down conditions regarding the amount of capital which it is necessary to have in the business and the amount provided by Irish Free State nationals. He may also lay down conditions regarding the management of the business and to ensure that the management should, so far as possible, be in the hands of Irish Free State nationals, but the most important conditions, perhaps, that the Minister will seek to attach to whatever licences he may grant are those regarding the nature and quality of the cement manufactured and the maximum price which may be charged for cement manufactured at each factory.

We had been asked to put in this Bill a standard specification, laying down exactly the quality of cement which it would be necessary to produce in order to get a licence, because, as Senators will realise, the price fixed and the price which the Minister must agree to and which will be laid down in the licence will largely be regulated by the quality and nature of the cement to be produced. It is hoped, however, that the question of the specification of the cement will be dealt with in subsequent regulations and it has not been thought advisable to lay down the standard specification at this juncture in the Bill itself. Therefore, the safeguard that we have, with regard to the price of cement, is that the quality of the cement and the price charged will be such as the Minister agrees to.

There are various other conditions which he may attach to the licence for the manufacture of cement, but these, I think, are the most important. I wish, therefore, to emphasise this fact that we do not anticipate, if this industry is established and the factories are got going, that the price which will be fixed and which the Minister will have to sanction will be the same as the price which now rules in respect of the Irish Free State market. It is anticipated that the price will be somewhat higher. It would not be an economic proposition for people to come in here and invest large sums of money under present conditions. I believe that the capital necessary in respect of each factory might run up to £500,000. Something between £400,000 and £500,000 has been stated as the amount of capital necessary and, obviously, it would be impossible to get cement manufacturers to undertake the business unless they had some security in regard to unfair competition and unless there is some guarantee that they can make a reasonable profit and that they are going to cover their costs of production and their usual expenses. The Minister must, therefore, be satisfied as to the price before he grants the licence. It is anticipated that the price will increase but not to a very great extent, but that there will be a gradual increase during the period between the time when the Bill becomes law and when the cement factories are capable of producing our total requirements.

In the event of a person, to whom a licence has been granted for the manufacture of cement, breaking any of the conditions laid down by the Minister, he will be subject to a penalty not exceeding £100, plus a fine not exceeding £50 for every day during which the offence of breach of the conditions laid down in the licence continues and, under another section of the Bill, the Minister has the additional power to revoke a licence which has been granted, if he is satisfied that the conditions have not been observed.

Parts III and IV of the Bill are somewhat novel. They deal with the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of cement factories and for the purpose of certain transport works which have to be set up in connection with the running of these factories. We are very anxious to have the factories established at the earliest possible moment and we thought, when we were putting these proposals before the Oireachtas, that it would be advisable to include this provision for the acquisition of land because, normally, of course, as Senators know, it would be necessary to proceed by way of private Bill, to have hearings in committee, and there might be some vexatious delays and vexatious claims made which would tend to hamper the quick establishment of the industry. I think that, within these two Parts, consistent with getting the industry established as soon as possible and removing the danger of vexatious delays or hindrances, we have given fairly appropriate safeguards. The Minister, for example, if an application be made to him for an order making compulsory the acquisition of certain lands, has to consider any representations that will be made to him in connection with the application and may not come to a decision within six weeks. If it is found impossible to reach agreement regarding the compulsory acquisition of the land, the matter is referred to an arbitrator in the same manner as is provided under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. In addition to that, all orders made by the Minister in respect of compulsory acquisition of land or in connection with the provision of facilities for transport works will have to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, who may annul the orders if they see fit. I think these two Parts of the Bill will be recognised as being necessary for the establishment, at the earliest possible moment, of the industry.

Part V is an important part of the Bill and it deals with the second matter of licences. The first matter, as I have pointed out, is the question of the licence for the manufacture of cement. The Minister may grant a licence for that purpose and may attach certain conditions. I have given the Seanad an outline of some of the conditions and all the conditions are set out in Section 12. Part V deals with the licences for the importation of cement. It would be very anomalous if the cement factory were established, capital invested in it and the industry got going in a particular part of the Free State, that, within the area served by that factory, cement importation should be allowed to continue. At the present rates, it would be impossible for the factory to compete and the Minister seeks power here to restrict the importation of cement and to grant licences to importers provided that certain conditions set out in Section 30 are fulfilled. The Minister will, during the period which must elapse before we are able to supply our total requirements from home sources, be prepared to grant licences but he will endeavour to see that, in whatever steps he takes in connection with the matter, he will not interfere with the success of a particular factory serving a particular area. This has been a rather troublesome matter and it is difficult to set up suitable machinery which, while allowing persons who cannot procure cement from the factories to import it, will, at the same time, achieve the end desired by the Minister, that is to say, will not interfere with the success of these new factories, but it is believed that by granting these licences, on which a fee will be chargeable in accordance with the amount of cement that is being imported, the difficulty will be overcome. A fee will definitely be charged on each licence in proportion to the total tonnage of cement which it is proposed to import. It is thought that, in the beginning, the fee will be something like 6d. per ton on foreign cement and 5/6 per ton on British cement.

During the 18 months when the factories are being established and the industry set up, these fees may be increased, because, as I have already pointed out, we have to face the fact that the price of cement will increase, but it is not anticipated that it will increase to a very substantial degree. I am not in a position to state definitely what figure cement will, in fact, be produced at in the Irish Free State. There is the question of quality and the question of the specification which have yet to be dealt with. There is also the fact that, although the Government has been in consultation with groups—I think there are two definite groups interested—and proposals have been handed in to the Minister of Industry and Commerce, nothing in the way of a definite decision has yet been reached, so that it would be impossible for me to tell the Seanad at the moment what the ultimate price of cement will be. I can only say that it is anticipated that the price will be something over 32/- per ton. It may be 34/-, or it may be 36/-. I cannot give a definite figure. But, I think that we can take it that it will be over 32/-, and that cement imported into the country, pending the setting up of these factories, will have to pay a fee which will be regulated according to the amount of cement imported and regulated also in view of the ultimate price which the Minister will shortly be in a position to announce. But for the first three months it is thought that the fee will be nominal: 6d. a ton on foreign cement, and in the case of British cement, on account of the emergency duties which we have imposed, something like 5/6.

It will be stated probably in opposition to these proposals that they tend to increase the cost of housing. They do, but from the inquiries I have made, I think the increase is very small indeed. I have been told that even a 4/- increase in price would only mean a very small, an almost infinitesimal, increase in the cost of the production of a single house. Under this Part of the Bill the Minister reserves to himself the right to refuse to grant licences for the importation of cement. There must be a certain amount of discretion left to the Minister in view of the fact that we have got to give these factories an economic basis to work on, but, consistent with that general plan and general policy, it will be the duty of the Minister to see that the price of cement is properly regulated; that the quality is of the highest standard possible, and that the price is as moderate as may be. In connection with these licences for the importation of cement, the full particulars regarding each particular import licence will be published in the Iris Oifigiuil.

With regard to the factories I should also say that their allocation will depend largely upon the arrangements made by the cement manufacturers themselves. We know definitely that it is their intention, if these proposals go forward, to set up factories in areas where consumption is large and where they will be near a market. If one factory is established in the east and one in the south of 100,000 tons output in each case that will be sufficient to cater for our present requirements. Later on, if the demand for cement increases we may have a third factory which I hope may be allocated to the western area. The amount of employment estimated for the two factories in the east and south is something between 400 and 500 men employed directly. There will, of course, be other advantages. Employment will be given in connection with transport and distribution: in fact probably more employment will be given in the distribution of this cement from inland centres than is at present given in the distribution from the ports. The cement will have to be distributed from two or three centres, and Senators will recognise that a good deal of indirect employment will be given in addition to the direct employment in the factories themselves. I think these are the main points in connection with the Bill.

Mr. O'Farrell

A good deal of the enthusiasm that might otherwise be created by the establishment of two cement factories will be modified, I think, by the announcement of the Minister that the cost of cement is going to go up. The Minister is unable to say with any certainty, even approximately, what the amount of the increase is going to be. I take it the policy will be to enable manufacturers to charge what the Minister will consider an economic price: that is a price that will pay for the cost of production, interest on capital, sinking fund and so on. If these factories are not worked very efficiently, needless to say the charges that will enable these costs to be realised will be high in proportion to the extent to which the cost of a commodity like cement goes up, and to the same extent will housing be affected. It will be a terrible shock to those interested in pushing on housing programmes to learn that a serious impediment is likely to be placed in the way by an increase in the price of cement. Cement is becoming very popular in the erection of houses. It is used to a tremendous extent now. Personally for that reason alone I should not be very sorry if I saw something happen that would cause builders to go back to bricks because I think they are infinitely preferable to concrete. I am afraid they are not going to do that so that one of the big results from this may be a slowing down in the carrying through of housing programmes.

The Minister indicated that there may be 400 or 500 men employed in the two factories. Well that is not a tremendous number. You might easily, by a slowing down in house building, disemploy four or five times that number. It is, I think, notorious that the amount of labour employed by cement factories is very small in proportion to the total output. The Minister did indicate that more people might be employed in the transport and distribution of cement after these two factories are erected than is now the case. Well, that would mean that the cost of production would be added to and that the cost of cement would be further added to. It would mean uneconomic distribution, if that is the case: an addition to the labour costs, and consequently a further increase in price. One of the alleged drawbacks in regard to housing is the high cost of building so that anything that would tend to increase the present cost would be disastrous in present circumstances. We have the great advantage that at the present time cement is being made available here at a cheaper rate than in any other country in Europe. In view of the housing programmes in hands, that is a tremendous advantage. If we are going to imperil that by allowing the price of cement to be increased unduly for the sake of employing 400 people, and at the risk of disemploying perhaps 2,000 people, I do not know that it is a very statesmanlike move.

It would seem to me that if eventually we give a complete monopoly of the cement requirements of this State to a couple of people—to a few factories—then we should insist that they will sell cement at world prices, not at the price perhaps that it is being sold now in the Free State, but at world prices. Why should the Irish people have to pay more than the world price for cement? Surely we should have our housing materials as cheap as the people of any other country, and in view of the tremendous leeway that we have to make up in this direction I think we should be very careful not to impose an undue burden on those who have set out to solve that very big and difficult problem. I hope, therefore, that the Ministry will be exceedingly careful, when these factories are set up, to see that the country is not exploited. Once they are established, of course, one cannot allow them to go down if at all possible. That may mean charging a price for cement that will be out of all proportion to the price charged elsewhere: that will be out of all proportion to what we should pay, having regard to the world price.

I notice that Section 4 of the Bill provides that "The Control of Manufactures Act, 1932, shall not apply to the process of manufacturing cement." That is an extraordinary proposal. It is less than a year since that Act was passed. It was said at the time that the Act was extremely necessary in order to prevent Irish industries being captured and exploited by aliens. Yet, here in the very first Bill almost under which it is proposed to set up a real industry that particular Act is set aside so that the much hated alien is allowed to come in and exploit the cement industry.

Mr. Derrig

May I say that under Section 12 the Minister has power, which I hope he will take advantage of, to attach conditions such as those which I mentioned in my opening statement regarding the ownership and control of the industry and employment in it? The Control of Manufactures Act is not necessary, I think, in this particular case in view of the fact that conditions can be attached.

Mr. O'Farrell

In any case it was considered necessary to set aside that Act. Perhaps the Minister will say that Section 12 will prevent aliens from owning more than 50 per cent. of the capital in the cement industry. If it does, of course it is almost equivalent to the Control of Manufactures Act, but it is rather significant that that particular Act has been set aside so quickly, particularly in regard to what is expected to be a permanent industry here.

Mr. Douglas

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his frank and lucid explanation of the Bill, particularly in view of the fact that he is only acting here as deputy. I think we are all grateful to him for putting the purpose of the Bill so frankly and clearly before us. To my mind this is absolutely an experiment, a somewhat doubtful experiment, but it is part of the general policy of a Government which proposes, by every means in its power, to arrange that all possible articles shall be manufactured in this country. With that as a general policy, as something to be aimed at, I certainly am not going to disagree. We have, however, a case here which shows clearly the difficulties that are involved in a policy of that kind. I frankly admit that, in some respects, this Government have discovered in a way not previously discovered that certain goods can be manufactured at a reasonable price for a country with a population of 3,000,000 people—goods not previously manufactured here. They have also discovered that some other goods can only be manufactured here at a very much higher price. Now as to the goods that can be manufactured at the same price as outside, there is no doubt whatever that any step taken by this or any other Government to ensure this manufacture here is highly desirable.

If they can only be manufactured at an increased price it may nevertheless be desirable that they should be manufactured here. That is particularly the case where the articles are of a luxury or semi-luxury character and are not in any sense a national necessity. It may also be the case where the amount of employment given is so large proportionately that the gain to the country is worth the increased cost which the consumer has to pay. Where, however, the article which you desire to have manufactured here is one which is required by the whole population, and particularly one that is required by the poorer sections of the population, you have to hesitate a great deal and very carefully measure the benefits before you decide that that article should be manufactured here if the cost is to be substantially, or even to any extent, increased. I should like to ask the Minister if he could give us, when he is replying, some idea of the amount of employment which he anticipates in the two factories. He used a figure, I think of 500, but he then went on to refer to a certain increased cost in distribution, and it was not clear to me whether the 500 included such employment, or whether it specifically referred to the two factories. Personally I cannot see why there should be any substantially increased employment in distribution, because if the cement is used it has to be distributed at the present time, so whether it is imported and distributed, or whether manufactured here and distributed, it does not seem to me that there should be much if any difference ultimately. I do not see how you can count on any increased employment on the grounds of distribution.

Senator O'Farrell referred to the fact that the Control of Manufactures Act did not apply to this Bill. I think if he will read Section 12 carefully, he will realise that the scheme proposed here obviously would have to cut out some, at any rate, of the provisions of that Act. In the policy outlined in the Control of Manufactures Act, it was intended to limit the number of persons who would come in here, invest capital and manufacture in industries which were being protected and which, therefore, might in certain cases be an attractive market for manufacturers.

To my mind if you adopt for a small country of 3,000,000, a full protectionist policy you must have some such Act as the Control of Manufactures Act, whether you like it or not, because the area is small. If persons, particularly our own nationals, are going to be persuaded to invest money in industry, when the total consumption inside the protected area is small, they must have some kind of assurance that there will be a limit to the amount of manufacture which will take place. Otherwise, if you have no such provision what will inevitably happen will be that a number of small persons will start in these industries, and at a later date some large combine will come in, and if they are perfectly free they can put the smaller people out of business, after these people have proved that the market is there.

If the area is small, it does not seem to me that you could possibly adopt a protectionist policy such as is being adopted at the present time without some such restrictive provisions as there are in the Control of Manufactures Act or such as are proposed here. But we have to face the fact that provisions of that kind are creating difficulties in themselves, and unless I read into the Minister's speech and into this Bill something which is not in any way intended, I think that that very Control of Manufactures Act, which is more or less necessary, has prevented the establishment under the ordinary normal procedure of large industries such as the manufacture of cement. I am not expressing any opinion about this industry because I do not know anything about cement, but we have to consider whether the Government are justified in this experiment or not. I look upon it as an experiment which is rather doubtful because it touches the provision of housing which is essential in this country. To get your cement factories established you have got to have a closed market. You have to provide that after what the Minister considers the requisite number of factories or the requisite capacity to manufacture has been obtained, then the market will be closed and there will be no further importation from outside. I find it difficult to make up my mind as to whether the drawbacks of a closed market in industries of this kind may not prove greater than the admitted advantages which will accrue by establishing these industries. I think it is one of those things which can only be solved after it is tried out.

I should like to point out several rather unsatisfactory provisions in the Bill. They are provisions which will be almost certainly followed in similar Bills which may be introduced for other commodities in order to provide a closed market. Senator O'Farrell drew attention to the Control of Manufactures Act. The Minister interrupted him and pointed to the provisions of Section 12. I should like to point out to the House that Section 12 means that the Minister sets out to specify a Control of Manufactures Act for every licence and the provisions for one firm may be different to those which are given to another. One firm may be allowed to manufacture with 50 per cent. Irish capital. In another firm the Minister may insist on 75 per cent. Irish capital, while in a third there may be only one per cent. Irish capital. That is a matter that is entirely at the discretion of the Minister. I think that there is very grave danger that in conditions of that kind you may create a great deal of feeling and much dissatisfaction. Further, I am not sure that it is fair to persons who get licences. The Control of Manufactures Act was carefully considered in the Dáil and here and as a result a considerable number of safeguards were introduced to deal with any situation that might arise. It did safeguard persons who obtained licences to manufacture under the Act, and it safeguarded existing industries. In this case we are not concerned with existing industries but we are concerned to some extent with persons or firms who come in here to manufacture under the provisions of this Bill.

The Minister drew attention to the fact that a breach of any of the conditions which the Minister may attach to a licence under Section 12 involved a fine or penalty of some kind—a continuous fine to a maximum of £50 per day and the danger that the licence would be withdrawn. I should like to draw attention to the fact that under Section 12 (k), one of the conditions shall be the employment at such factory of nationals of Saorstát Eireann. Other conditions are (1) the extent to which the raw materials and articles used for the manufacture of cement at such factory shall be materials and articles produced or made in Saorstát Eireann; (m) the extent to which the capital invested in the business carried on under such licence is from time to time to be owned by nationals of Saorstát Eireann; and (n) the extent to which the management of such business is from time to time controlled by nationals of Saorstát Eireann. I want to point out that those are things, particularly those mentioned in (m), which may not be absolutely at any particular moment in the control of the firm. Let us take clause (m) for the sake of argument. A licence is granted on condition that 51 per cent. of the capital is owned by nationals of Saorstát Eireann. I take 51 per cent. because that is the provision in the Control of Manufactures Act. If it is to be, and it almost certainly will be in the case of a large company, a public company, its shares will be issued to the public and are liable to transfer. We know that in some of these larger firms it has not been easy to get Irish capital. In certain cases to my own knowledge some of the larger firms have only just managed to get 51 per cent. Irish capital.

If it just manages to get 51 per cent, and if by death a transfer of shares takes place, that factory may by circumstances outside its own control cease to have 51 per cent. of Irish capital. In the Control of Manufactures Act that is met. There are provisions which provide that that will result in no penalty for a period of six months, a period which gives the company time to make the requisite arrangements. Under this Bill, as it stands, if there is a breach of any of the conditions—and the Minister is empowered to attach the whole of the Control of Manufactures Act to a licence—the licence may be withdrawn. I suggest it is not a wise thing to give the Minister power to attach conditions such as control by nationals in such cases, and that if you are going to have that principle operated it should be on the same lines as in the case of the Control of Manufactures Act. If you are going to make a provision of that kind, which may mean that a man may incur a penalty for a breach of the licence it is not fair to the licence, because conditions may arise which may render the licensee liable to a penalty for a breach of the licence and he will not have the provisions of the Control of Manufactures Act to safeguard him.

The Minister referred to the question of standard specification. There is a very strong feeling amongst engineers and architects—I think it is pretty general—that the standard of cement must not be allowed to fall under this Act. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated in the Dáil that he accepted that view and that he was most anxious that the general standard, which is the British standard at the present moment, should be maintained. The Minister attaches a condition to each licence, whether that be a licence to manufacture or a licence to import, stating the quality for that particular importation or that particular manufacture but the quality may be different in the case of different persons. It seems to me that it is desirable that, in some form or other, there should be a standard below which one cannot go in the quality of cement which is going to be manufactured. I think that it is generally admitted that owing to the very wide use of cement in the building of cheaper class houses, the introduction of a cheaper quality of cement might prove in a very few years to be a national disaster. The difficulty could be got over in two ways. You could either provide— which I think would be very cumbrous and somewhat difficult—for a test specification or, alternatively, assuming the Minister agrees with the present standard—which is really the world standard because I understand it has been adopted very largely in all countries—the present standard could be adopted as the Irish standard. In that case a provision could be made that the Minister should by order define a minimum standard specification before any licences are granted to a manufacturer or importer instead of providing that the quality will be stated in each particular licence. I should like the Minister to explain a statement by him that rather puzzles me—that during the period that steps are being taken to get the factories ready the price will gradually increase. I suppose that is right but I cannot see why it should increase unless the Government means to put on a progressive tax.

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Mr. Douglas

If it were not being made here, the persons interested would not want a higher price for a thing they were not producing and, presumably, it could be bought from outside at the price which obtains at the present time. I take it from the Minister's "Yes" that the intention of the Government is to force up the price. If that is so, I think that it is a very doubtful policy. It means that the country will have to pay an increased price even in the interim and we do not know to what standard the price is going to be forced. Until the factories shall have been established here, we shall not know at what price cement can be produced here. Nevertheless, the price is to be forced up before that. I think that that is placing an unnecessary tax on housing. I do not like that proposal and I hope it will be carefully considered by the Minister before it is adopted.

Miss Browne

On principle, I should be against this Bill. It will increase the price for building, which is a very big item. Farmers and others use a considerable amount of cement, though they have not very much money to spend on building now. However, they must continue to use cement and I should be against the raising of the price on them. This is protection gone mad. However, that aspect of the matter has been very ably dealt with by Senator O'Farrell and Senator Douglas and I cannot add anything to what they have said. But if it is decided to build these factories and if one is to be built in the south, I want to put in a claim, here and now, for my own county, which is the only place where cement was manufactured in the past in Ireland.

Mr. Farren

That is not so.

Miss Browne

I am corrected in that. A large cement factory was carried on there for years and a great amount of employment was given in the district. It only failed because the owners could not produce cement as cheaply as the imported cement. I knew the place well. My family owned property beside it and, so far as a factory can be made ideal, the conditions of employment there were ideal. An important consideration is that the natural materials are there and are superior to any in Ireland. The cement manufactured by the Cooper family in Drinagh was far better than anything imported.

Sir John Keane

I do not agree. I used it.

Miss Browne

We thought we could never get anything as good. The lime has a peculiar quality there. For building it is superior almost to any other lime. It has peculiar strength and I was always told that that was the reason that Drinagh cement was superior. A great deal of unemployment was caused in the locality when the cement factory was closed. It is within three miles of the large town of Wexford. The Government's agricultural policy has hit that town very badly, because it has hit the foundries. They have lost from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of their trade and a great deal of unemployment in the town of Wexford has been caused by the Government's agricultural policy. The farmers have no money to buy agricultural implements and sales have fallen enormously. These things ought to be taken into consideration. A very fine factory, well built, is standing empty. Why then build another factory? The Wexford factory may want to be enlarged if 500 people are to be employed in it. There were not that number employed in the old factory. There is a railway line running up to it. It may be that it is too much in a corner but, after all we have done for the railways, the freight to other parts from Wexford should not be too heavy. There is a railway line running through Waterford to Cork and running along the east coast to Dublin.

When these factories are being considered, I hope that the position in Wexford will be considered. There is a tradition there as regards this industry, which is an important thing in the manufacture of any article. The people there have been doing the work and know how to manufacture the article. In all industrial countries, certain places specialise in the production of certain articles and it is well known that these articles can never be manufactured with equal success outside these particular districts. Sheffield makes knives and Bradford makes wool but Sheffield could not make wool as well as Bradford does. A great many men in Wexford know all that is to be known about the manufacture of cement. While I do not agree with the general principle of the Bill in compelling people to pay more for an article so necessary as a building material, if these factories are to be built, I hope that the claims of Wexford will not be overlooked.

Mr. Crosbie

I hate to differ with a lady but I should like to point out that in no part of the world could cement be better manufactured than in Cork.

Cathaoirleach

We are not discussing the question of locale now.

Mr. Crosbie

Nobody would object to this Bill going through if we could be sure that only 6d. per ton was going to be charged for foreign cement and 4/6 for British cement. That would not affect the building trade very materially, but we cannot forget that, in pretty similar conditions, a Flour Bill was passed not very long ago. What do we find to-day? Flour is 25 per cent. dearer in the Free State than it is in England. Like Johnny Walker, it is still going strong. I believe that, in a very short time, the price of flour will go up further.

Mr. Farren

And the number of people employed in its manufacture will be less?

Mr. Crosbie

That has to be taken into consideration. The number of people employed in the flour trade in Ireland is not more than 400. We have before us a proposal to set up a cement factory. It will cost £500,000 to set up one of two factories. I should like to know how much of that capital will be spent outside the Free State and how much will be expended in either Wexford or Cork. At the moment Continental cement, we are told, is being made at a loss. I can quote one small figure for the information of Senators. Five or six years ago a cement block, eighteen inches by nine inches by four and a half inches, cost 6½d. To-day, that block can be bought for 3d. I take it that the price of the sand in that block has not varied very much. That shows that, at the moment, the price of cement, as Senator Farren explained, is extremely low. If we can get an assurance from the Minister that a definite price for the commodity will be fixed, we will all welcome the factories that the Minister foreshadows. At the same time, I think that we are all greatly disappointed at the number of people that will be employed.

I want to argue against the possibility of an Irish factory being able to produce cement within a reasonable distance of the people outside. First of all, we have very little experience in the making of cement, though in Wexford they have had some experience. In other countries they have had years of training. They have the highest experts employed. They have proved that they know their business. At the same time, we shall have to bring fuel to all our ports, and that is a very important item in the manufacture of cement. If the price of cement went up in anything like the proportion that the price of flour has gone up, I do not think that the public would welcome these factories. Otherwise, most of us would be most anxious to see them established.

Mr. Cummins

It is very refreshing, indeed, to hear Senator Miss Browne speak in the terms which she did in reference to this industry. The speech of the Senator was the most encouraging speech I heard for a long time from that side of the House. While she professes to oppose the Bill on principle, she has certainly made a very strong case in support of the Minister's arguments. She stated that a factory existed at Drinagh, that it gave immense employment in the locality, that the materials, in the opinion of experts, were the best obtainable, and that the factory failed because at one period, as I take it, cement was produced at less than the cost price in other countries, as it is being produced to-day. The home factory was, therefore, not able to compete. That is what is happening at present. Nobody knows how long that condition of affairs will continue. It is not likely that these countries will continue to manufacture cement if they are doing it at a loss. Beyond doubt, the necessary material is available in the country. The amount of expert knowledge required in the manufacture of cement is not very great. We have men in this country who can hold their own with any men in the world in knowledge of this business. It is no argument to say that we cannot compete with foreign experts or with mass production. It is no argument to say that employment will be provided for only 400 men. If 400 men are capable of producing all the cement required in this country, it is absurd to say that the building trade will be so affected that 4,000 or 5,000 men will lose employment if the price of cement is raised as a result of the establishment here of a cement factory. The work of 400 men could not affect the building trade to such an extent that 4,000 men, as has been stated here, would be put out of employment. I do not think that that can be argued at all.

It is within the experience of Senators that when tenders were invited for the building of cottages throughout the country five or six years ago, when the price of cement was normal, and when builders were given a choice of cement construction or brick construction, the difference in the tenders was negligible. At that time Portland cement was being manufactured as a paying proposition in England. The difference in the tenders was then negligible and was not sufficient to affect the rents of these houses. When all is said and done, it would be a very good thing if a great proportion of builders were driven back largely to the use of bricks. Even if the price of cement were raised, I believe we would have a compensation in the action of builders in resorting to the use of bricks. We have brick clay in abundance in this country, equal to that in any foreign bricks. I think it would be an advantage if this Bill resulted in driving builders back to the brick fields and thereby opening up the manufacture of bricks. This is an experiment, and a very laudable experiment. The Shannon scheme was an experiment. It met with opposition. Every experiment is a plunge in the dark, such a plunge as some people would take to-day by backing the Aga Khan's horse or by backing Mr. Dawson's horse. This plunge is more of a certainty than some of the things that were opposed here. When these schemes were started we did not think any the worse of them in some quarters, but the results have been beyond the anticipations of those who opposed them. I believe that the results of embarking on this scheme will be very fruitful and surprising. When the Minister speaks of additional employment in the way of transport of materials I do not agree with him. Employees presently engaged in that end will find sufficient to do in future distribution. I do not think that additional employment in that way will be given. It may give additional employment incidentally in the immediate locality of the factory, such as catering for and supplying four or five hundred men and their families. I believe this scheme will be a success for cement for the upkeep of the roads of the future.

It is generally acknowledged that cement-constructed roads will play a very important function in the future of the transport system. Where such roads have been tried they have been productive of good results. With the extension of roads of that character the employment given by cement factories may be multiplied three or four times. I hope that will be so. In any case, I believe this is an experiment worth trying. If the particulars regarding housing are gone into, it will be found that this proposal will not interfere with the progress of building operations or hold up building schemes. I have heard no argument against the Bill, and I cannot understand why Senator Miss Browne opposes the Second Reading, while at the same time giving the strongest approval to the feasibility of establishing the industry here.

Colonel Moore

When the Congested Districts Board were building houses in all parts of the country some years ago, I remember they found that the difference in price between cement and bricks or stone depended on whichever material was available in a particular place. In some places the cement was cheaper, in other places stone was cheaper, and in other places bricks were cheaper. That was the experience of working all over the West of Ireland. With regard to what Senator Miss Browne said about the cement that was manufactured in Ireland, I can bear her out in that matter. There was no better cement than that made in Wexford. I remember that a very high wall was built with Irish cement around the racecourse at Mullingar. They boast of that wall in Mullingar. It is certainly a very fine wall. The question of free trade arises in connection with this matter. The same difficulties are raised whenever a Bill of this kind is brought forward, the argument being that there will be such a rise in prices as will ruin the country. We have had experience of free trade in this country for the past 70 or 80 years, with the result that we have no industries. It is time to put an end to that state of affairs and to see what can be done otherwise. Even those who were insistent for the maintenance of free trade have found it necessary to change their policy and to charge a higher price for commodities made at home than those that are imported.

It is desirable and necessary that we should have cement factories, and that they should be protected from attack by other countries sending in supplies, which would result in closing the Irish factories. Many industries here failed owing to the attacks of combines and rich merchants outside the country, who decided to crush Irish industries. These combines could send sufficient quantities of their manufactures in and sell them at prices that would prevent factories here manufacturing at the same price. When the factories were closed the price of the imported article would immediately rise. Unless we can control that danger we do not know the moment the foreign firms might raise prices. We had many instances of it. I remember when the late Mr. Parnell opened mines in County Wicklow to supply the Dublin Corporation with cobbles, there was great opposition although the Wicklow stones were the cheapest. Firms in Wales immediately dropped prices considerably below what the same stones could be produced at, and as soon as the Irish stones were out of the market, prices immediately rose. That is an example of what has been done here for 70 or 80 years, and I hope it will not be allowed to continue any longer.

Mr. Foran

I think we might describe Senator Miss Browne as being in favour of the factory but against the Bill. I may say that I think the Government are rather late in introducing this Bill. It should have been one of the first Bills they introduced. We know that battleships, railway engines and railway tracks are now being built with cement. What could be better for the building of a tariff wall than cement? A cement wall will be impregnable. I know a little about this matter. The Government may get the Bill, but it is very doubtful if we will ever get the factories, seeing that the cement corporations are huge international combines. I went into this question some time ago with residents in Skerries, where, notwithstanding what has been said about the Wexford cement, I am told the material is capable of producing the best cement in the world. The Portland Cement Corporation was approached, and they bought an option; but they never went on with the factory. I am told that these people have options in some of the best centres in the country for cement, but that they have no intention of building a factory. I am doubtful if anything we can do will induce them to do so.

I want to call the attention of the Minister to another aspect of this matter. Cement is very largely used in all parts of the country and is entering into all forms of industry, such as housing and roads. I understand from people who ought to know that in comparison with the expenditure cement gives very poor labour returns. We are living in a machine age. The Government does not seem to realise that the machine is displacing man everywhere. I will give an instance. We went to great pains to ensure that we would produce all the flour we require in this State. So far we have only succeeded in enriching the mill-owners and displacing the workers. I know one mill not very far from this House where the output has been increased by 50 per cent. and the staff reduced by 25 per cent. Where are we leading? The people are paying more for flour. Who is getting the benefit? We are talking about putting on tariffs but machinery is imported from England or from the Continent. The machinery for the factories will be imported from some other country. The capital will be sent abroad for machinery to produce the cement while the workers will be on the dole.

What I want to bring home to the Minister in this matter is that, realising we are living in a machine age and that machines are displacing men in industry, they ought to set about making a definite labour charge on these industries to which monopolies are given, in order that the workers may get some real benefit from these industries. At present that is not the case. If we are going to launch out into cement factories we may find that we are paying a very enhanced price for the cement, as the employment given may be infinitesimal in comparison with the outlay. I want to impress that upon the Minister. We are all in favour of the Government's efforts on behalf of Irish industries, and in particular for the development of rural industries but, when we see what is happening in flour milling, we want to stop that practice, if it is at all possible. These cement corporations are huge affairs, and it is doubtful if they will worry about the amount of cement they sell here. We are fortunate in having international competition for cement. As the Minister said, we are getting it at much less than the cost of production. That is a very fortunate position to be in, but it may not remain so very long; so that it is well to ensure against its cessation by legislating towards that end. Having got our legislation, I am doubtful if we will get our factories.

Mr. Johnson

I should like to follow what Senator Foran has said in regard to this question of the concentration of capital into these factories. Last week, on the Insurance Bill I suggested that, notwithstanding the protestations of the Ministry regarding the decentralisation of industry, the tendency towards concentration would be too great for them and this instance, I think, is another illustration of the truth of that statement. The Minister has given a good deal of information but he has not given enough and I would ask him if he can tell the House something more about the expectations regarding the subscription of the capital. He has told us that the capital cost of one of these factories might be £400,000 or £500,000. No doubt, it is within his knowledge where it is expected that the capital will come from in the beginning. On the figures that have been given, it is quite clear that a very great proportion of the cost of a ton of cement will be allocated to pay interest on the capital invested which means the export of that return and not its employment in Irish industry. On the assumption of £500,000 capital in a factory with 100,000 tons of an output, one can see the probability that even at what would be considered a moderate return for dividends and depreciation of only 10 per cent., you have 10/- per ton going to the recoupment of the capital provided by people who are probably outside this country altogether.

Then, the question arises, too, of what proportion of the fuel that would be required to produce a ton of cement will be of Irish production. Conceivably, it might be all of Irish production, but I wonder is that going to be a factor to be put before the proposed company. If it is all imported, there will be another 10/- per ton of cement going out of the country because, some time ago, it was stated on good authority—it may have been changed since; new methods, new machines and new methods of power usage might have altered the situation somewhat—that it took 10 cwt. of coal to produce a ton of cement. Some information on that point would be welcome because, if the provision of the machinery and the coal is to come from abroad, the repayment of the cost of those out of the ton of cement will account for at least £1.

A good deal has been said about the use of cement in house building but, during the last three years, at any rate, there has probably been more cement used on roads than has been used on houses and even if every house in future is to be built of concrete and if three times the number of houses are to be built per year than have been built, say, for the last three years, there will not be more than 100,000 tons of cement per year used in house building. I have been expecting to hear something from the motor owners and users in regard to the increased cost of road making and, therefore, the increased road charges that would fall on the Road Fund. I think it will undoubtedly be an advantage to the ratepayers if there is a very great increase in concrete road making because the original cost will come, in the main, out of the Road Fund and there will be a very much smaller charge for upkeep. What the effect of that will be on rural labour is another question, but Senator Foran has drawn attention to the inevitable consequences of these modern advances in technique and methods of production which the Minister knows very well are not going to be recompensed by the kind of labour that would be involved in the making of cement in such a factory as this. I do not know of my personal knowledge but I am pretty certain that the experience of cement making in Drinagh, twenty years ago, however efficient it may have been, would have very little to do with the making of cement in the new factory that is to be built. I anticipate that it will be chemists, mechanics, engineers and the like that will be required and not skilled labourers and that the Irish labour that will be required in the main will be wheeling barrows, keeping chutes in order and that kind of thing. I anticipate—the Minister could tell us whether I am right or not—that most of the 400 or 500 persons likely to be employed in connection with the two factories will be employed in the preparation and the gathering together of the material rather than in the factory itself and that is not going to be very highly paid labour.

Whether it is deliberate or not, I do not know, but I notice that, notwithstanding all the powers the Minister has taken, he has not taken any power to ensure that the pay of the workers in connection with the factories will be under his control, and that there is no security that a reasonable minimum wage will be paid to those engaged in the work. In regard to the price, undoubtedly cement is being imported at the present time at an exceedingly low price. I have heard talk of 26/- per ton for certain Continental cement, and I find from the returns, for the first three months of this year, that the average price in the City of Dublin was about 30/6 per ton. That is considerably below what is being obtained for the same qualities of cement anywhere else, but, as has been pointed out, you cannot rely on that for very long. Only a year ago the average price for cement of all kinds landed in Dublin, for the first six months of the year, was 37/2, against 30/6 this year. In 1928, it was 40/4; in 1929, 38/7; in 1930, 36/9, and in 1931, 35/3, so that the price prevailing to-day cannot be relied on to be maintained, and if, as the Minister expects, the price of Irish cement can be fixed at not more than, say, 35/—I think that was the figure he gave—we are probably not going to be worse off than we were in any of the years from 1928 to 1932. We know that every effort is being made to-day to raise prices universally on all kinds of commodities and, if there is any success in that, I have no doubt at all that cement will be one of the first to which will be added several shillings per ton.

I was glad to hear from the Minister that the intention with regard to the licence duty on imports, during the period between the passing of the Bill and the establishment of the factory, or, rather, I think he said the first three months, was to put only a duty of sixpence per ton on Continental cement. That is a relief, and I hope that the increase beyond that will be very gradual indeed, because it would be a disadvantage, but not, by any means, so great as some people have suggested, that there should be an unnecessary rise in the price of cement merely for the benefit of the Exchequer, because that is what it would mean, between now and the establishment of the factory.

I think it is well to give some information regarding the effect of a rise in the price of cement on the cost of a concrete house. The Minister said that the amount that actually falls on the tenant of a house which is being built under the Act of last year is not going to be very heavy. Assuming that about 15 tons of cement go into the building of a house which is costing, say, £450, which is higher than most of the houses that are being built in the country now for slum clearance schemes, a 5/- a ton rise in price would not involve a cost of more than 5/- a year, and it must be borne in mind that, on that class of house, the State is bearing two-thirds of the cost so that the increase in the charge on the tenant of that house would not be more than 1/8 per year. That is not going to be a very heavy burden if there is any advantage at all. The question that is involved, I think, is what is going to be the effect on employment in other industries that are engaged in the preparation of materials for houses of the establishment of cement factories in this country. Is it going to be a case of leaving the enterprise to win its way against every other kind of material or is it going to be a case of giving definite preferences of all kinds to the capitalists who have been induced to invest half a million pounds in such an industry?

There are proposals, of course, to establish brickworks, and similar kinds of operations are being encouraged. Somebody said that the great majority of people would prefer a brick house to a concrete house. If there is going to be reliance entirely, or even to any great degree, upon house-building schemes for the support of the cement factories, then one has to bear in mind that the demand for brick houses, if there is a supply of bricks of good quality available in different parts of the country, will probably decrease the demand for cement for house building. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that there is a great market in other directions for cement. Road-making is an obvious use that would be made of cement. I have no doubt there will be very great changes in the physical aspect of this country in the next few years, due to the fact that cement is being made at home and that it is a very valuable article for construction works.

The Ministry is taking powers in this Bill to secure that the quality of Irish made cement will be up to standard. I think it was Senator Douglas who suggested that it would be worth while taking powers to secure that the quality of the imported cement was up to a similar standard. I do not know—I have no reason for saying it—that any poor quality of cement is being imported, but I can say that if there is any poor quality of cement in the world at all it may come here in view of the fact that this country is being used at present as a dumping ground for surpluses in other countries. So long as it is once accepted, as a Government duty, to insist on a standard specification for any cement that is to be used in the country, I suggest that should be put into operation immediately and not leave it to the chance of any builder or contractor to buy any cheap cement that he can get, knowing that he will be able to sell his house and have no further responsibility for it. Once the Minister has accepted the duty of creating a standard for the cement that is to be used within the country, I suggest to him that he should put that into operation immediately in regard to all cement that comes into the country.

I support the Bill because I think it is desirable that the country should be in a position to manufacture its own cement and not be dependent on the chances of the world market and the willingness of competitive foreign manufacturers to supply this country at a low price. But there is an aspect of this that troubles me a little. I would ask the Minister either to look into it or tell us that he has already looked into it. Senator Foran expressed a little doubt as to whether, notwithstanding all the preparations, there would ever be any cement manufactured in the country at all. Assuming that there is to be cement manufactured in the country one may ask: who are the manufacturers of the machines that are going to be used in the factories? To what extent are the machines being made by firms which are owned by rival cement trusts and combines? There are so many questions involved in this kind of thing that one is tempted to be a little suspicious: to ask for assurances that all these various aspects have been looked into, and that a frank statement of all the facts will be placed before the Oireachtas.

Mr. MacEllin

This debate has been very long drawn out, so long that the House seems to be emptying itself. One statement made by the Minister rather surprised me: that it has been definitely decided to establish one factory in the East and one in the South. We had Senators from Cork and Wexford putting forward their views, and suggesting that factories should be established in their particular areas. This Bill, in my opinion, represents a progressive move on the part of the Government. I do not know that the Minister's statement that the factories will be set up where there is likely to be the largest consumption represents a very wise decision. I think it would have been much better to work on the principle of setting up factories where you had the best materials and the best workers. If the Government go on that principle, I am satisfied they will not set up factories in the South and East, but in the West.

Mr. Farren

What about Carlow— Kilkenny?

Mr. MacEllin

On the question of cement buildings, it is my opinion that cement houses for the people are not near as good or as healthy as houses built of brick or stone. I think the Government would have been well advised to follow up the very sound principle they acted upon in connection with the Gaeltacht Housing Act by advocating and insisting that Irish materials would be used. I think that even if the use of stone involved a little extra cost the Government would have been well advised to insist on stone buildings rather than cement ones. It has been my experience, and that of the farming community who are obliged to put up stabling, that cement floors in stables are not healthy for live stock. The old cobble stone floors were much healthier. The putting down of cement floors in stablings has resulted in a terrible increase in rheumatism and other diseases in live stock. The cattle get rheumatism from sleeping on the cold cement floors. Taking all these matters into consideration, I think it is not good policy for the State to advocate the use of cement in house building.

Senator Douglas said that the price of cement will be increased here as a result of the setting up of these factories. The Minister anticipated that point in his opening speech by saying that the price would possibly be no higher here than it is in England at present. It will be higher than the present price of cement here, because that price is a dumping price. It is questionable whether we are getting good value for the cement that is being sold here at a dumping price. It is only a few months since I saw some stabling that had been built with this imported cement. The building was up as far as the roof, and when a man pushed his foot against it the whole side wall collapsed. What happened was that the cement was of such poor quality that it never set. I do not say the cement used in that stabling was typical of all the cement coming into the country, but certainly there is a lot of that class of stuff coming in. Even at the present price we have no guarantee that we are getting good value in the cement that is being imported.

With regard to the general principle as to whether or not cement factories should be set up here, whether we should have any factories at all or not, we have had to-day the same old whining cry from the members of the Opposition: "Oh, this is protection gone mad. This is bound to fail, you will be up against the greatest experts in England, France and America, who are the be-all and the end-all of everything in connection with the manufacture of this article. You can never compete against them." That is the cry we always get from the members of the Opposition. It reminds me of the story of the young man who had ideals. When starting out in life he went to consult a cautious old man. When he put his proposals before him the old man said: "Do not be foolish, do not go into that, you will never succeed." If views such as those were to be followed by everybody then the world would have no great manufacturing magnates; we would have no great manufacturing centres. What have you in the whole commercial world but a policy of gambling? No matter what sphere of activity people enter, they have to gamble at some period of their lives. It is only the gambler in any sphere of life that succeeds in the long run. In connection with this Bill, we have a market of our own, and it depends on ourselves whether we make a success of this or not. The market is here for all the cement we manufacture. There is not even the element of gambling in it, because the market is there. Yet, in spite of that, the members of the Opposition utter their old cry, because they seem to have no interest in anything except in their own petty political ends.

Mr. Farren

I want to say at the outset that it we have to use cement in this country we ought to make some effort to produce it. It is another question whether or not its manufacture will be a paying proposition, in view of the fact that we will be obliged to compete with people already engaged in its manufacture in a very large way, and whether it may not inflict too great a cost on the community for the benefits that may be derived from its manufacture here. I am satisfied that we have in abundance the materials required for cement manufacture, and there is no reason why we should not endeavour to turn that raw material into the finished article. I do not know that a lot of what was said to-day on this Bill was quite germane to it. We had a variety of matters introduced that, I think, might very well have been left out. Senator Douglas referred to the question of standard quality. He said the Minister should take steps to ensure that the cement manufactured in the two factories it is proposed to set up would be of a certain standard quality. I think that, of necessity, the Minister must do that, whether the cement is used for road work, for the building of houses, or in any other large undertaking. The reason is this: that architects and engineers responsible for the preparation of specifications for such works will see to it that the cement used in them is up to a certain standard. Therefore, I think it will be the duty of the Minister to make regulations providing for a certain standard quality.

Senator Douglas also referred to another matter which I think is of very great importance, the fact that under Section 4 of the Bill it is provided that "That Control of Manufactures Act, 1932, shall not apply" to this measure. I take it that what the Minister has in mind there is that it may be impossible to get in this country 51 per cent. of the capital required for the establishment of these two factories. Therefore, he has taken the precaution of putting this section into the Bill, so that in the event of 51 per cent. of the required capital not being available here that will not act as a barrier to the setting up of the factories. I would like to say that up to recently we had a factory in Dublin that gave employment to 300 people. The factory failed, though efforts were made to secure 51 per cent. of the capital from Irish Free State nationals. I say that it is a pity the Government did not, for the sake of the 300 people employed there—and if their families were taken into consideration there would be about 1,400 souls involved—waive the condition in regard to capital in that case. Very few of these people got employment since. I think it is regrettable that some steps were not taken to exclude that particular factory from the provisions of the Control of Manufactures Act with regard to capital.

Senator O'Farrell and others have said that if the price of cement is increased it will add materially to the cost of housing schemes. I suggest that if the aggregate of cement used in the manufacture of concrete blocks 18 by 9 by 4½ which are being sold at 3½d. each continues to be used, there cannot be any increase in the cost because I am afraid there was not very much cement in them. I think if you can procure concrete blocks with a proper aggregate of sand and cement you will get houses much cheaper than have been built in recent times. Senator Foran referred to the matter of British combines. I know from my association with him that he has a good deal of experience in these particular matters. He talked about a certain area putting forward claims as a centre for a factory. I believe with the last speaker that in selecting a site for a factory, the questions to be considered should be whether the best materials are available there and whether the site would be suitable from the point of view of transport. No matter what county that site is in if these conditions are fulfilled that is the place to erect the factory to make it an economic proposition. There is no use putting one county against another. That method is all wrong. If the thing is going to be attempted it should be done in a purely businesslike fashion. The question of proximity to large centres where there is likely to be a big market should also be taken into account. Senator Foran referred to the fact that a combine had got an option in a certain part of the country where it is known that an abundance of material is available for the making of cement. He stressed the fact that these people had taken an option, but I might point out that in Part III of the Bill the Minister has taken steps to deal with such parties like them. Where an option has been taken, the Minister has power to acquire the lands compulsorily. We need not, therefore, fear the activities of big combines in that respect.

Much play has been made in regard to the question of preventing our people from enjoying what we are enjoying undoubtedly at present—the luxury of being able to purchase cement below the cost of production. It is an extraordinary thing, but it is true, that we are getting it below the cost of production. It is also an extraordinary thing but it is also true that we are selling butter to the people of the North of Ireland below the cost of production. It appears to me that we are living in a mad world. We are buying cement from other people below the price at which they can produce it and at the same time we are selling to the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland produce at a price below the cost of production to us. It seems to me, as I say, that we are living in a world which has gone mad. We hear a lot of talk about modern methods and mass-production but it seems to me that it would be a good thing for humanity if we went back to the old-time methods when we had rubble stone walls. That was before the cement age.

A Senator

What about the old mud walls?

Mr. Farren

We had mud walls, but there was no necessity for them, because we had plenty of stone.

Sir John Keane

And plenty of masons.

Mr. Farren

One did not need a mason at all for the type of house I am talking about. Senator Foran also referred to the question of protection for flour milling, and to the fact that the Oireachtas went through the form of passing an Act to protect flour millers against unfair competition and against the dumping which was going on. The combine on the other side was dumping flour into the country below the cost of production. Their surplus production was being dumped here, and in order to prevent that, the Oireachtas passed a measure protecting the flour millers and providing that flour could only be imported under licence. What happened? As Senator Foran pointed out, one of the flour millers increased his output by 50 per cent., and at the same time reduced the number of workers engaged in that industry by 25 per cent. It appears to me that there is something radically wrong at the present moment when such things can take place. I read the speeches of people who are responsible for things such as that every day in the week. These people in responsible positions are constantly pressing the Government on many questions, but I want to say openly and frankly, as a representative of working-class people, that if the petty manufacturers of this country think that laws are going to be made to enrich them and to degrade the working class people, we are not going to stand for it, and the sooner they know it the better. I have met some of the people who were engaged in this particular industry and who have lost their employment. They are in a pitiable position. Many of them are on outdoor relief, and some of them have been evicted from their homes. If protection is going to bring nothing better to other industries in this country, the sooner we understand one another the better. If protection means that the petty capitalists are going to get freedom to exploit a restricted market and are going to get the right to compel the whole population to pay an increased price for the commodities they produce, if it is going to enrich a few people while bringing misery to the working population, it is not going to continue very long.

As I say, I am in favour of this Bill, as I believe it will benefit the community at large. I support it in the belief that it will benefit the community as a whole and not with any idea of benefiting only a few people. At some stage steps will have to be taken to deal with the all-important question of protection for workers which is involved in this. We heard some years ago that what was wanted was more production, but then a most extraordinary thing happened—the countries who produced most are poorest to-day. We produced more than the people could consume; we invented machines which displaced the human element in industry. We know many people are so poor that they are not now able to purchase the commodities we produce.

Mr. Bagwell

I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but having heard some of the arguments adduced in favour of it I feel that it is up to me to say something. This Bill, of course, is part of the policy of extreme self-sufficiency in production. It is a policy in which I do not believe, a policy which I think could be accepted by anybody only with great reservation. Nevertheless, it is one which has undoubtedly been endorsed by the electorate as has also the policy of regulation of industry by the Government which enters very much into this Bill. There is no question whatever but that this Bill will be given a Second Reading. It should be in the circumstances, but I think if you admit the principle you will find it very difficult to amend it. Although I believe I am a very small quantity in this House, I think it is my duty to express my views on this subject. This idea of extreme self-sufficiency in production, that you will make everything you require, and at the same time expect other people to buy your surplus production from you, is one of the things that is killing the civilized world to-day. It does not need anybody of great erudition to see that. It is a fact that is being demonstrated in the newspapers every day.

I have no objection to the establishment of a cement works in this country to manufacture all the cement we require by private enterprise, but I do say that it is a very curious thing that notwithstanding the fact that we have had all these remarkable natural resources that have been described for the manufacture of cement, we have not got these works established by private enterprise. There has been a considerable market for cement in this country for a long time, yet we have not got these cement factories. The Minister hopes to establish them under protection with the result that cement will be dearer. That fact the Minister has admitted without any reservation. He is satisfied that with the present state of things it is exceedingly unlikely that the operation of this Bill will be unattended by a rise in the price of cement. Cement is especially cheap in this country. We have got it at a price under the cost of production to the manufacturers. Nobody is suffering from the cheapness of that cement, and a great many people have benefited by it. I should say that position was a good one if we left it alone. It is not going to be left alone because the idea is that it is desirable that we should make our own cement and that employment should be given. I have no objection to any scheme which aims at the reduction of unemployment, but is it desirable that you should give employment in the making of cement—dearer cement? That is one side of the picture. On the other side there is the fact—I think it follows as an incontestable fact—that cement is going to be dearer and that all buildings and engineering works into the construction of which cement enters will be dearer. Streets and roads made of concrete will be dearer. I do not believe in this policy, or I do not believe in this Bill, and I think I should say so.

Sir John Keane

I was not very anxious to speak in this debate until I heard Senator MacEllin make his outburst. Lest he might think that the position was that those who represent certain classes were cowed, I feel I should say something. Of course, as Senator Bagwell has said, this is another step along the road of self-sufficiency, or, if you like to call it, economic isolation. I am glad to see that some people at least are getting uneasy. We had evidence of that last week and I feel that Senator O'Farrell is not very well placed on those benches. I think he, at least, sees the red light shown by the policy involved in this Bill. One would have thought that when you got full-blooded protection you would have enough of it, but not a bit of it. These apostles of self-sufficiency never seem to be satisfied. In fact, it seems to me that they cry "stinking fish" in suggesting that there is not enough brains or ability to take advantage of the protection which is afforded to industry, that you must go further and give monopolies, and in order to secure this national position, you must make conditions about capital control and everything else—as much as to say, that without this statutory protection our people are incompetent. I think that that is a very sad and a very wrong admission. Apart from this being socialistic and open to all the dangers that some of us believe socialistic policy involves—rigidity, regulation, stereotyping existing conditions and technique, preventing scientific development—apart from that, what is this Bill going to do for the community? Admittedly, it is going to raise the price of cement. The volume of employment which it will give was previously estimated at about 1,000. That has now been reduced to 500 and, as against that, has to be set a very probable diminution in the number of people handling this stuff at our ports. In connection with the whole policy, there is the great danger of reducing the business of handling goods at our ports and rendering unproductive the large amount of capital put into the facilities provided at the ports.

One aspect I have not referred to yet in connection with this unfortunate proposal—that is, the limitation of the varieties of cement that must follow. Anybody who knows anything about building knows that there are many varieties of cement—ordinary, standard Portland cement — differing largely in their setting qualities. Some set slowly; others quickly. It is desirable, in some cases, from the point of view of engineering technique, to have a rapidly-setting cement. Here, you are restricting your market to a small country, as this undoubtedly is. What is the analogy? The analogy is as if you were going to make cement in Yorkshire or Middlesex or Lancashire. That is the proportion. If you are going to limit your market to that extent, you are not going to be able to supply the different varieties of cement needed for the best building technique. We have white cement, of Portland cement character, made for certain purposes. Though the market is small, the need exists in certain cases, and, if you are going to consider the amenities of life, you ought to be able to supply that cement and not have to go to the Government for a licence to import it. You have, then, this quick-setting cement, which is used for ferro-concrete, and another class of cement for setting under water. Naturally, where you have a small market, you cannot supply these varieties out of your own resources, and you are bringing in all this Government regulation and licensing and all the trouble and worry that those involve.

Senator Crosbie spoke as if the price to the public was entirely dependent on the cost of production. Everybody knows that that is not so. The price to the public is very much influenced by the purchasing power of the public. I feel that, if this policy continues, the purchasing power of the people will be reduced and you may make as much cement as you wish, but the people will not buy it, because they will not have the money. One has dealt so often with the general principles involved in this matter that one can only continue to protest. When one is boiling enternally with indignation, one gets a certain amount of relief in speaking one's mind. You have here a most extraordinary contradiction. One of the Senators referred to "a world gone mad." We are, presumably, putting our hands in our pockets and sending delegates to a world conference to try and arrange for a freer flow of trade and to try to get somewhere near the axiom that trade is mutual and depends on the exchange of goods. While doing that, we are giving a denial to that whole doctrine by the policy we are pursuing here. We, ourselves, are a large part of the demented world.

Sir John Purser Griffith

I hope that the Seanad will bear with a few words from me. My claim is that I am probably the oldest user of Portland cement in Ireland and that, during my forty years' service in the Port and Docks Board, I have probably used the largest quantity of Portland cement in Ireland. I have only one real fault to find with this Bill—that is, leaving the quality of the cement to be arranged by the Minister. I should have liked to have seen a statement in the Bill setting out a definite standard below which the cement manufactured here or imported into the country should not go. I was, perhaps, one of the pioneers in connection with the formation of standard specifications and tests for Portland cement. As far back as the year 1887, I brought the subject before the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland. I impressed upon them the necessity of adopting standards in specifications not only for Portland cement but for other materials, though Portland cement was the principal factor in the proposals I made. Two years later, having visited Germany, I submitted another paper on standard tests, using the same arguments that I had used previously but reinforced by the experience I had gained abroad. In the early Seventies, Germany had been practically dependent on English Portland cement. England had almost a monopoly at the time. Germany, with its usual determination, set to work to discover a method by which they could replace the imported cement with cement manufactured in their own land. They went about the matter in a very business-like way. A combination was formed between the Government, cement manufacturers, engineers, architects and builders. That association still exists. They came to agreement, after very careful investigation, with scientific thought, as to what standard should be adopted for the Portland cement of Germany. Of course, the first objection raised against that was that it would stereotype your material, and that you would not get any improvement in cement manufacture. That has turned out to be a complete mistake. To the present day, Germany manufactures Portland cement under this standard specification. Thirteen years after I brought forward the subject in Dublin, the English Institution of Civil Engineers formed a committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfe Barry, a very distinguished engineer of his time, with the object of obtaining a standard for Portland cement in particular and for other materials, like steel and ironwork. That Committee worked hard and gradually gained ground. It was replaced finally in 1901 by the British Standard Engineering Association, which has now a world-wide reputation. Practically all the manufacturers in Britain and in our colonies are adopting that standard for the Portland cement to be used by them. My plea is that the Minister should insert in this Bill a minimum quality of standard Portland cement.

Without entering into details, I should like to say that British standard Portland cement is recognised all over the world as a thoroughly sound and safe material. That would not prevent the manufacturers making different qualities of cement, such as Senator Sir John Keane has spoken of. That has, undoubtedly, proved beneficial to the cement manufacturers as well as to their clients.

I remember speaking in London on this subject. One of our best Portland cement manufacturers was present and he said: "We have made our reputation by the manufacture of our cement. We are not going to jeopardise it by any of the fads Mr. Griffith has proposed." Within two years after that speech was made, I received from that gentleman's firm a circular stating that they were now prepared to grind their cement to a fineness equal to the German standard. That was the first step taken by one of our leading firms. Now, the various "fads" which engineers put in their specifications have ceased to exist. My only recommendation is that the Minister should take this into account in this Cement Bill and insert a standard which the cement manufacturers and the public at large will understand. Any cement manufactured in this country should be up to that standard. In my view, it is very important that we have an unlimited quantity of material in Ireland for the manufacture of the very best Portland cement. Some 45 years ago I was approached to use a Portland cement made not many miles from Dublin. As an importation myself into this country, I naturally looked upon that cement with suspicion, but the result was extremely gratifying from the cement manufacturer's point of view, for I became a convert to the opinion that we could, in Ireland, get as good a cement as could be obtained from the other side of the water. We used some of that cement on our works on the North Wall, but, finally, the poor company was driven into liquidation as a result of the very low price at which the English manufacturers combined to send their cement into this country. These are some of the points that strike me most forcibly. I do feel that, on the Committee Stage, an effort should be made to make perfectly clear that our Portland cement will be up to standard and will be recognised out of Ireland, for I cannot help believing that we have here a manufacture which would result in a good export trade.

Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Minister would explain one matter, about which I am doubtful. In the event of the factories not materialising, is it the intention to subject licences to bring in cement to a revenue charge?

Mr. Derrig

I think not. The position is that for the next three months, and perhaps longer, the licence will be purely nominal. I should perhaps have explained more fully that the intention with regard to this fee is not so much that the price of cement should be graded up to the price at which cement will ultimately be produced here, as that it is desired to provide a safeguard, in case, when the factories are started, cement may continue to be imported in large quantities. The intention is not alone to reach that price, whatever it may be—I daresay it will be the world price—but to prevent importers from taking undue advantage of the position. As the Cathaoirleach suggests, if a situation arises where it would be impossible for some reason to proceed with these proposals, I take it then that the imposition of fees will not be insisted upon, and that the whole thing will lapse. We are not in a position to state definitely what the price of cement will be here ultimately. We will try to achieve the position that only cement of the highest possible quality, of British standard specification, or even a higher specification, if it is found feasible, will be produced, and that the price will be related to the world price. I see no reason why cement cannot be produced here at the same price as in other countries. I must confess to the Seanad that I have not gone into the costings closely. Senator Johnson raised a number of points in connection with the matter. I can only promise that when the proposals are being examined in the Department the closest possible attention will be paid to the question of getting materials from home sources, and endeavouring to see that whatever money is spent in connection with the factories will, as far as possible, be spent at home.

I would like to assure Senator Sir John Griffith that the question of British standard specification has been under consideration. One of the difficulties I see is that if it was considered desirable to raise the specification, or to make any alteration at a later stage, it would be necessary to introduce a special Bill to do so. I can see a difficulty about leaving the matter in the hands of the Minister, but I think the House can rest assured that the Minister, in conjunction with the different Government Departments concerned, will consult with the engineering bodies before he reaches any final decision in reference to the specification. I know that the Minister has been considering the British standard specification. His feeling was that it might be better not to introduce it into this Bill. However, that can be argued on the Committee Stage.

The substance of the discussion that was germane to the principle of the Bill revolved around the question of price. I was glad to hear Senator Johnson, who has more experience of housing matters than I have, referring to costings. I do not know whether an increase of 10/- is possible. I should say it is not, unless price cutting is carried on to a greater extent. One of the reasons we are taking these powers is because the whole situation may change and syndicates may arrange that cement will be sold in the Irish Free State at a certain price. On the other hand, competition may become keener, and it is possible that the price of cement may become lower through a price-cutting campaign. I can assure the Seanad that the world price will be the basis and the foundation of the price that the Minister will endeavour to fix.

As regards the situation of the factory or factories the Government, of course, in its endeavours to develop industrial potentialities here is constantly up against this question. There is no doubt whatever that foreign capitalists coming to this country look at this matter purely from the point of view of their own commercial profit, or, from what might appear to them to be solely economic considerations. The circumstances in this country are often entirely unknown to them. After all we cannot blame them. They are taking a risk, taking a leap in the dark, in the same way as we are, and it is up to them to see that their business will have a reasonable chance of success. They are not going to sink money in a venture that has no prospects. The only alternative I see to our starting the industry ourselves would be a frank discussion between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the parties to the transaction, whereby the rights of the public will be fully safeguarded. Anyone who has control of a Government Department, even for a limited period, will realise that our position is different to that of the man who puts up the money, who has to take a certain risk, and who is prepared to take it. He knows what he is about, and he takes a sporting chance that he will win out. If he does not, that is his funeral. In the case of a Minister it is quite a different proposition. The Minister has to look before him to see what is going to happen in four or five years' time when an entirely different situation may arise. A project which looks simple on the surface may have other implications which may not be brought to the Minister's notice until it is impossible to go back.

We meet these difficulties constantly. I can only say with reference to the question of decentralising industry that there is a desire on the part of people investing money in industries to be near large centres where they feel there will be a market and the other amenities that are necessary. On the other hand, I think technical science and the development of machinery have reached such a pitch now that, as Senator Farren has pointed out, wherever there is raw material in abundance industries can be established if you can only bring people who are responsible for setting up industries and putting money into them round to that point of view. Of course, the question of transport charges has to be considered.

We have been trying to make arrangements with regard to certain areas, particularly the poorer areas, which otherwise would be neglected, to see if they could not have industries, and in regard to industrial alcohol and peat we hope to succeed in making definite arrangements. I have to agree with a great deal of what Senator Johnson, Senator Farren and Senator Foran said, that very often these industries are a doubtful proposition. We cannot hope to achieve finality or perfection. In present circumstances we can only make what we consider the best arrangement for the future, and see that an opportunity is afforded to reconsider matters at a later stage. In the beginning of an experiment such as this, a certain leap in the dark must be taken. There are certain doubts but, on the whole, I think the proposal is sound enough because there is a market here.

With regard to industrial proposals generally, there are all these difficulties. We could, if we wished, sit down, as our predecessors did, saying that it was too much trouble. There are many Departmental difficulties. We cannot possibly overcome them at once. It may be that we will not overcome them satisfactorily. At any rate we are determined to go ahead. That is a big thing, if there is a will to face the difficulties. After all, if there were no difficulties there would be no fun. The difficulties are there and they have to be got over. With the assistance and co-operation of the Oireachtas and the people I think we will be able to face those difficulties and, please God, overcome them.

Of course, some Senators disagree fundamentally with this policy. I remind them, at any rate, that the policy is definite; that we are going in a certain direction. It is not like the policy of other countries that goes in one direction for two or three years and then turns back and goes in the other direction. At least we will not say that we are going to stick to the gold standard, that everything depends upon doing so, and then suddenly reverse, saying, that there is no necessity whatever for sticking to the gold standard. Another country which announced that it was the most wonderful free trade country in the world; that free trade was the life breath of commercial prosperity, turns round and decrees a regular tariff wall, imposing tariffs as high as any other country. The Government there should not interfere with free trade, which was the policy for 100 years, neither should it regulate trade, but now it suddenly turns round and ties up trade and agriculture by a system of quotas and restrictions.

In this country people may disagree with our policy, which is clear and definite, and which, on the whole, is understood. But I think the people, as a whole, are anxious that the policy of relying on the foreign article, because it is a cheap article, should end, and that we should try to produce our own requirements. If we fail, well and good. Someone will come along and point that out, but there is no need to burst into righteous indignation. People will get an opportunity of pointing out whatever mistakes the Government makes, and there will be a full discussion on them. Would it not be better for the country if we had more co-operation and more of the friendly advice which we had from some Senators, so that we could get things right?

At any rate, let us recognise, like people in Parliaments in other States, that when a certain Government is elected with a certain policy, it is the duty of the country to let that policy go ahead; not to obstruct it and not to come along with shibboleths about economic isolation. I could call the policy of economic isolation economic development. The argument of increased cost to the purchaser has been exploded, because we have shown in the factories that were set up in Cork and elsewhere that we can produce articles as good, and probably better, than foreign articles without increasing prices. The technique is there if we only get the necessary technical qualifications and get our own people to acquire them. There is no reason whatever why all our resources should not be placed at the disposal of our own people. If, as Senator Johnson stated, we do not do that, we will only make confusion worse confounded. For the present the Government has accepted the principle of private enterprise. On the whole, we believe it is better that these new industries should be run by people who have experience, and who are well qualified to run them rather than that a Government Department should attempt to do it. If there are difficulties in dealing with these capitalists and so on, and it is quite obvious that public policy is subordinated to private enterprise, and if the general intention of the Government, that the whole policy we are engaged upon at present should be for the benefit of the community as a whole, is not being carried out, I quite agree with Senator Farren that it is the duty of the Government to take steps to deal with the situation.

The Senator, however, while referring to the irrelevancies that had been introduced, brought in some irrelevancies himself. He referred to the closing down of a factory in Dublin. I am not fully cognisant with all the facts, but I know that every effort possible was made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to endeavour to get people in this country interested in that factory and to get the necessary 51 per cent. of native capital, and I know that people were interested and that people could have done it, if they thought it was a good business proposition, but they thought that, apart altogether from the particular difficulty of the time, the general prospects of that particular factory were not good. That is my information.

Senator Douglas attaches great importance to the Control of Manufactures Act. It seems to me that Section 12, to which I referred, shows clearly what the policy of the Minister in this regard is. He will endeavour, so far as he can, to see that the majority holding of the capital is in the hands of Irish Free State nationals, and that the management will, so far as possible, remain in the hands of our own nationals and that, so far as possible, employment will be given to our own people also. I am not in a position to say to what extent those groups who have put up proposals in this matter are prepared to float a capital issue here or what arrangements they have made with the banks or what other arrangements they have made for an issue. All I can say is that, in this matter, we shall, of course, endeavour to get the 51 per cent. of Irish Free State capital, but I would remind Senators that we have a number of proposals of this kind such as the beet and peat proposals and this particular proposal here, and I could not say, at the moment, whether, in respect of all or any of those proposals, it will be possible to get the capital subscribed here at home. We know that, up to the present, there has been a certain diffidence and more than diffidence, a definite timidity, in investing capital at home. People have been afraid of labour troubles; they have been afraid that this policy which is being embarked upon at present may not continue but that it may be changed at some future time. I have no doubt whatever but that the Government will endeavour to get the largest possible amount of capital subscribed here at home. If it is the position that we cannot get the 51 per cent. of capital subscribed here at home in connection with the cement industry, we shall have to consider whether it is worth while going on with the proposals. I have quite an open mind on that matter but I think that, even if we cannot get the 51 per cent., if we can assure ourselves that, in the future, the majority holding will be in the hands of our own nationals, we should be satisfied. We should be prepared to take a certain amount of risk in the beginning if we feel that ultimately the thing will work out all right and that the policy that we are desirous of having in operation will be carried out.

I agree also that a great many people would prefer an extension of the brick works, and I have only to say that public bodies, obviously, can do a great deal to help these brick works in their different areas. I know also that definite proposals have been made and definite work is going on to develop brick works in different parts of the country. That is very valuable indeed, and I hope that this proposal will not injure this development in any way. There will always be the question, alluded to by many Senators, as to whether the cement house, in spite of its cheapness, is really the best dwelling even for poor people. There will always be, I think, a desire among architects and public men generally, and those charged with responsibility in the matter, to endeavour to provide brick houses, and I think that public bodies, under the present arrangements for giving preference to Irish materials, can do a lot to help these brick works forward.

We have two points of view which again show the difficulties that a Department is up against in connection with proposals of this kind. We have the point of view expressed here on the left that we want to safeguard ourselves against these capitalists in the matter of the capital and to see that the return they get is not inordinate and not too large a proportion of the return which the factory gets from its manufacturing. On the other hand, we have the point of view of Senator Douglas, who is anxious that these people who come in and invest their money here should have some safeguard, and that they should not be at the mercy of the Minister, and he suggests that, on Committee Stage, we may have to discuss the question of whether some definite conditions or definite safeguards might not be embodied in the Bill to protect these people. We are taking a risk just the same as they are.

The whole matter is sub judice at present, but I must assume, from my own knowledge, which has been corroborated in the House, that these big cement manufacturing combines are not likely to make any great mistakes in any arrangements they are making with the Government. They have all the technical knowledge and experience; they can come along with new machinery, with the very latest developments, and, in dealing with them, of course, we have only knowledge which, perhaps, is not very up-to-date in regard to these costings and so on. These people are always in an advantageous position in that they have the very latest knowledge and know where the greatest economies can be made, and know, when planning out a new factory, everything that will go to making it the producer of higher profit per unit than has ever been done before. They have acquired that knowledge, and it is their opportunity. They have spent their whole lifetime on that, and, as I said in the beginning, so long as we accept the principle, as we are accepting it, that private enterprise should have a hand in these proposals, and that we should rely on it largely to bring them to fruition, we must, if we ask them to take a certain risk in establishing the industry, at the same time give them certain opportunities to make good.

When the Government is definitely associated with proposals of this character by legislation, obviously, the matter would always, if particular difficulties or crises arise, be fully open to public opinion and open to the fullest possible discussion in both Houses. That is the best security the people have and, on the other hand, it is a security that is very valuable to those investing in the industry. They have the Seanad there as well as the Dáil and if they feel that they are not being well treated, I am sure that they can get opportunities to raise the particular matter that is afflicting them. I do not think I need go into the matter further. Senator Miss Browne and Senator Crosbie referred to the claims of their respective areas and Senator MacEllin referred to the West of Ireland as a suitable area for one of these factories. No decision has been made on the matter, and I think the House, as a whole, will appreciate that it would be quite impossible for me to give any indication. I mentioned the fact that a factory was likely to be erected in the east and also in the south, because the Minister for Industry and Commerce had already mentioned that in the Lower House, but beyond that I could not go at the moment. In any case, not having gone into the matter in detail with the groups who are interested as to what areas are best from the point of view of raw materials and all the other relevant factors, I could not possibly give any indication at the moment as to what places exactly are in mind beyond the general indication that the Minister has already given in the Lower House, that these groups are, apparently, interested in having their factories as near to the points of big consumption as possible. Any influence that the Government may have would be directed to endeavouring to decentralise these works and to spreading the employment more widely over the whole country, but there again you have, as I have already indicated, special difficulties. I can assure the House that the claims of particular areas are not being overlooked and that, in regard to some of the very poorest, we are making special arrangements and hope to deal with them in a special way.

Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 28th June.