Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 1933

Vol. 16 No. 28

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

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

(1) In this Act—

the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Industry and Commerce;

the word "cement" means Roman cement, Portland cement or any other hydraulic cement;

the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act.

(2) Each of the following persons shall for the purposes of this Act be a national of Saorstát Eireann, that is to say:—

(a) a person born in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now comprised in Saorstát Eireann;

(b) a person who at the relevant time is and for not less than five consecutive years immediately preceding that time has been ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann.

Mr. Douglas

I move amendment 1:—

Section 3, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—

(c) a person born in Ireland in the area not comprised in Saorstát Eireann who at the relevant time is ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann.

This amendment raises, in a slightly different form, a principle that I have raised on other measures. When a Bill of more general character but which contained a definition of citizenship for the purpose of the holding of shares was before the House, I endeavoured to persuade the House that an Irishman who happened to have been born in the Six Counties and who was willing to invest his money in the Saorstát should be definitely encouraged to do so. I said that the more that happened the sooner we would get rid of partition. Unfortunately, I was quite unable to persuade the present Government or their supporters that that was a desirable principle. Still more unfortunately, I was unable, eventually, to persuade the majority of this House that that was a principle on which they should stand, although a very considerable majority supported the principle. On this occasion, I am not attempting to introduce exactly the same principle as I sought to introduce before. Accepting the fact that the present Government and their Party, and a certain number of other members of this House do not agree with me that it should be as easy for an Ulsterman to invest money here and to become a shareholder here as it is for a member of the State, I am proposing to deal with the matter in a milder form. I am proposing that a person who was born in the Six Counties and who bona fide resides here should be deemed a citizen for the purpose of investing money here, and should not have to wait for a period of five years, same as an outsider. I suggest that that is a perfectly reasonable and proper thing to provide for in the Bill. I admit that the issue is not as important under this measure as it was under previous measures. The Minister has stated that there are a few persons interested in the setting up of cement works here. I have not the remotest idea whether any of them comes from the Six Counties. Therefore, I am not interested so far as any immediate effect under this Bill is concerned, though persons who wish to invest in such an undertaking might be persons who were born in the Six Counties but who are residing here. I think that an Irishman who had, shall we say, the misfortune to be born in an area not now comprised in Saorstát Eireann, but who has come to reside here, should be treated as a citizen for the purpose of investing his money here in exactly the same way as a person born here. Naturally, there are some persons here to whom this would apply, and I am quite unable to appreciate the argument against it. I thought it right to bring the matter up again and to seek the opinion of the House upon it.

Mr. Johnson

Has Senator Douglas noted what is implied by this amendment? It might be read to be an alteration of the section as it stands. Sub-section (a) refers to "a person born in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now comprised in Saorstát Eireann." I do not know what the conjunction might mean, but the Senator knows that fairly high authorities have contended that Saorstát Eireann is, in fact, Ireland, but that the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Saorstát Eireann does not apply to the Six Counties of Saorstát Eireann.

Mr. Douglas

What does paragraph (b) mean?

Mr. Johnson

Paragraph (b) may be a contradiction. I am not now suggesting that the section is consistent with that possible reading, but I suggest that the Senator's amendment would preclude the acceptance of that reading.

Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Derrig)

I have no doubt that if persons from the Six Counties were interested in these proposals—so far, I do not think that citizens of Northern Ireland have been connected with them—a preference would be given to citizens of this country as against outsiders in any discussions which might take place with the Minister. While I think I can promise that in that eventuality every consideration will be given to them as fellow-countrymen, the Senator will recognise that it would be impossible for me to accept the amendment. We had all this discussion before on the Control of Manufactures Act, and the Senator was not able to get the Minister to accept his view at that time. We are now in a position in which we have accepted and implemented in legislation a definite principle and a definition of "national of the Irish Free State." It seems to me that it would be very inconsistent and create a very ambiguous state of affairs if we were to negative that principle now and go back to Senator Douglas's original proposal. Whatever we do, we should do generally. What applies in the case of one industry should apply in the case of all. Senator Johnson indicated another difficulty in connection with the problem of nationality and questions regarding citizenship of the Irish Free State. That matter has not been definitely settled. Legislation will probably have to be introduced to determine definitely what constitutes a national of Saorstát Eireann. The Senator will, therefore, recognise that if I were to accept this amendment, I might be prejudging an issue which, it seems to me, will have to be settled in the near future—possibly by special legislation. The Senator will then have an opportunity of arguing the whole question, and we shall then have advice from the Government's Law Officers as to the position.

Mr. Douglas

I am afraid that the Minister has totally failed to convince me. He suggested in one of his last sentences that he would be prejudging the issue by accepting this amendment. I suggest that he is just as much prejudging the issue by defining "nationals" in the way it is done in this Bill. The Minister suggests that it is undesirable to have different definitions in different Bills. Is the Minister aware that the Control of Manufactures Act provides one definition, and that the Finance Act of 1932, for the purpose of a national holding shares in a tobacco factory, gives a substantially different definition? For the purpose of importing films or acting in films, another definition is given in another Finance Act, so that the worst that would happen by acceptance of this amendment would be that, instead of three definitions of nationals, we should have four, and the fourth would be better than the others. I find it utterly impossible to understand why in this comparatively unimportant Bill we should not insert the principle just because it happens to be different from the other three.

The principal line of the Minister's argument, I respectfully suggest, is not correct. He suggests that the principle was dealt with in the Control of Manufactures Act—that the House decided against my proposal. That shows that he has failed entirely to appreciate the clear distinction between this amendment and the amendment I proposed on that occasion with the answers then given on behalf of the Government. On that occasion, I was proposing—I should still prefer it —that a person born in the Six Counties should be treated in exactly the same way as a person born in the Twenty-Six Counties. On this occasion I have departed from that, because of the attitude taken up by the Ministry. The Minister's attitude then was that these persons might represent other interests outside and that he could not accept the principle as things stood. The Control of Manufactures Bill and this Bill provide that a person outside who resides five years here shall be not necessarily a national from the point of view of the ultimate decision in the matter but shall from the point of view of the holding of shares. I want to have the five years eliminated in the case of a resident here who happens to have been born across the Border. There are indications that there may be a new Control of Manufactures Act, and, if so, I want to get this principle established. It is not a question of the Minister being friendly with somebody who wants to set up a cement factory. I have no doubt that the Government will be friendly to anybody from the Six Counties about to engage in such undertakings. My experience has been that both this Government and the previous Government were always ready to facilitate persons from the Six Counties who were anxious to come down here. I am sure that that policy will be continued. But I want to deal with persons who are residing here and who want to invest in undertakings here. They may not want to set up factories at all. Companies endeavouring to get 51 per cent. of their capital raised here, in accordance with the Control of Manufactures Act, have had to ask every Irishman residing here and willing to put money into their undertakings: "Were you born across the Border, and, if so, have you resided here for five years?" If an Irishman comes in and resides here, I certainly think he should be entitled to invest money in these undertakings. I believe that my friend Senator Robinson has been residing here for five years, so that if he has any money to invest he will be entitled to invest it. But if he had not five years' residence, he would have to be ruled out. If an outside company gets a permit from the Minister to set up a cement works and invites the Irish public to subscribe, a person from across the Border who is a resident here may not be able to invest so that the company may get the requisite amount of Saorstát capital. That is a principle which I think should not be supported by this House.

Sir John Keane

The Minister has referred to this principle being enshrined in the Control of Manufactures Act. Surely he has had experience of the Control of Manufactures Act. Does he not realise that the provision as regards 51 per cent. of Irish capital is very largely a mockery? The Minister must know how that provision is being evaded.

Mr. Derrig

I do not know to what Senator Sir John Keane is referring. I have no knowledge that the Act is being evaded. We have to learn as we go along, and there may be loopholes in the Act, but I have not come across any of them during my short term in my present office. I have to say, in regard to what Senator Douglas and Senator Sir John Keane have urged, that I simply cannot recognise that at present there is a difference. I am not acquainted with the full legal implications, but it seems to me that there is a difference between the persons referred to by the Senator and persons who may be described as citizens of Saorstát Eireann. I could not at this juncture accept the amendment, having regard to the previous policy of the Minister on the matter and having regard to the fact that a Bill is being prepared to deal with the question of nationality and the question of Saorstát nationals generally. I ask the Senator not to press the amendment on the present occasion.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
• Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
• Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Counihan, John C.
• Crosbie, George.
• Douglas, James G.
• Duggan, E.J.
• Fanning, Michael.
• Garahan, Hugh.
• Griffith, Sir John Purser.
• Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
• Keane, Sir John.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• MacLoughlin, John.
• Milroy, Seán.
• Moran, James.
• O'Connor, Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, M.F.
• O'Rourke, Brian.
• Toal, Thomas.
• Wilson, Richard.

Níl

• Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
• Cummins, William.
• Dowdall, J.C.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
• Johnson, Thomas.
• MacKean, James.
• O'Farrell, John T.
• O'Neill, L.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, Séumas.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Sir John Keane and Douglas; Níl: Senators Quirke and S. Robinson.

Amendment declared carried.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mr. S.L. Brown

I move amendment 2, standing in my name and in the name of Senator Douglas:

New section. After Section 7, and in Part I, to insert a new section as follows:—

8.—(1) Before granting any cement manufacture licence under Part II of this Act or any import licence under Part V thereof, the Minister shall make an order prescribing the standard specification with which all Portland cement manufactured in or imported into Saorstát Eireann shall comply, and the quality of the cement specified in any such licence shall not be lower than the said standard specification.

(2) The Minister may, if he so thinks proper, amend or revoke an order made under this section and make an amended or substituted order prescribing such standard specification.

(3) Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such order is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent ten days on which that House has sat after such order is so laid before it, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order.

The object of this amendment is to give effect to the very important idea given to the House by Senator Sir John Griffith on this day week. It only applies to Portland cement. The House knows that there are many other kinds of cement, but Portland cement is the one which is of such general use that it is necessary to fix a standard only for it. It will be quite sufficient for the Minister to fix a standard for the others when they are to be manufactured or imported. The intention of the amendment is that there should be such a standard specification for Portland cement that no cement of a lower specification than Portland cement, which we have been using in this country for so many years, could be manufactured in or imported into this country. It is all made to a standard specification which is used in Great Britain and several other countries. It is most important that this standard specification should be fixed at once and it is most important that no two qualities of Portland cement could possibly be either manufactured in or imported into this country. It is with that object that we have put down this amendment. The reason for asking the Minister to make an order before any licence is granted is to ensure that there will not be any chance of a different quality of cement being either imported or manufactured in this country. The third sub-section of the amendment makes the usual provision that any order made by the Minister shall have no effect if it is annulled within ten sitting days.

Mr. Wilson

I should like a little information. At the present time, there is a good deal of Belgian cement used in this country and I should like to know if it conforms to the high standard set out here.

Mr. Brown

I am informed by Senator Sir John Griffith, who I know is a very high authority, that some of the Belgian cement does so conform and some does not.

Mr. O'Connor

I wish to support this amendment. I have had more experience of the use of cement, in my capacity as a farmer, than anyone in Kildare. I have been using it for the last 30 years. I have also used Belgian cement but only in foundations, where it was not exposed to the severity of the weather. It was cheaper and it was useful for foundations, but the cement I generally used was cement which we got from Messrs. T. and C. Martin's and which is known as white cement. It was a first-class cement and gave the greatest satisfaction when used in the erection of farm buildings, etc. I paid a good deal of attention to Senator Sir John Griffith's statement here the previous day. He can be regarded as the highest authority in the House on cement, and I would emphasise the necessity for ensuring that no inferior cement would be manufactured while this industry is being established. We had a suggestion, some years ago, for the establishment of a cement factory here, and I have been informed by a high authority that there is a certain green stone which is practically the colour of good cement and which would make an admirable cement. Nothing definite, however, has come of the matter, but now that there appears to be a prospect of such an undertaking in this country, I should like to see every possible precaution taken to ensure that nothing will be done by which that undertaking could be injured. I know that there was a good deal of comment at the time I have referred to as to opposition from England, and the cement factory that was established had to be abandoned because of poor prices and the low-down opposition that took place. It is one of the unfortunate features of industry here that we are very often robbed of success by unfair competition, but I am sure that the Government will take ample precautions to prevent that occurring in the future. I heartily support the amendment and I wish the greatest possible success to the industry.

Mr. Dowdall

Like Senator Wilson, I want to get some information. When moving the amendment, Senator Brown referred to one quality of cement only being permitted to be manufactured. The use of cement is a very technical matter and I should like to ask him or Senator Sir John Griffith, whose knowledge is pretty extensive, if that would cut out the new quick-setting form of cement which has come into use in recent years? The reason I ask is that it has been a great obstacle, particularly in such institutions as creameries, to have a portion of the floor, if it became broken, take 48 or 72 hours to set. If it was necessary to wait a week, it would embarrass the people running the industry very much, and if the specialising on one class of cement, and one only, would preclude the importation of that quick-setting cement, it would constitute a serious hardship.

Mr. Douglas

I should like to support this amendment, and to point out the position as I understand it. There is, I understand, a pretty generally accepted standard set up by the Standards Association which, incidentally, a member of this House, Senator Sir John Griffith, was very largely instrumental in setting up. It is accepted for Great Britain and accepted here and, in a very large number, if not the vast majority, of specifications for contracts that standard is made the standard which must be complied with. The standard for cement consists of a considerable number of tests which could not, because of their long character, be embodied in a Bill. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said—I am not quite sure whether the Minister who is here endorsed it, but I think he did— that he agreed that it was desirable that that standard should be accepted as the minimum, but that does not mean at all that other better qualities of cement could not be manufactured. Under this Bill, a licence is necessary for either the importation or manufacture of cement, and that licence can contain, if the Minister thinks fit, a provision as to the quality of the cement to be imported or manufactured. It, presumably, can contain a provision for a minimum quality, but that can vary under the different licences. The proposal in this amendment is that the Minister shall, by order, set up a standard specification which, we believe, ought to be substantially the same as that which is in vogue at the present time and which is substantially the same in the United States and in Germany and, probably, other countries as well. I know that it is so in the two countries I mention, as well as Great Britain. That would become, then, the legal minimum standard and, if the Minister thought fit, he could specify—it would probably not apply in the case of a licence to manufacture, though it could, and it might easily apply to a licence to import—a higher standard, but, in respect of a licence for Portland cement, if this amendment were passed, the Minister could not specify a lower standard than that set up by his own order unless he thought fit to produce an order providing for a lower standard which would have to come before the Oireachtas and be open to discussion. The object of the amendment is to substitute for the standard now set up by the Standards Association, of which we have no control, a standard which will be set up by the Minister himself and made effective by an order laid on both Tables of the House. I think that is the answer to Senator Dowdall's point.

Mr. Farren

I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the principle of the amendment and I think that what Senator Douglas said is true that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when this matter was referred to on, I think, the Second Reading Stage, did agree in principle with the policy contained in this amendment. It is true to say that, on all large contracts by public authorities and by people carrying out extensive building works, the engineers and architects responsible for the preparation of the specifications do insist on inserting in the specification a provision requiring a standard quality of cement to be used. I think that, in view of the fact that, in this country, all the raw materials necessary to produce cement of the standard quality required are there in abundance, there is no reason why we should not insist that the standard of quality to be maintained by people who get licences to open factories here should not be, at least, up to the minimum standard known in the trade as the British standard and the American and German standards at present.

I think it is important, in the public interest, that people who cannot afford the services of eminent architects and engineers but who may be engaged in building operations or operations of a type which would involve the use of cement, should be protected and that for the protection of these people we should take steps to see that the quality of cement that is manufactured or imported into this country shall be up to standard. The difference in price does not amount to a great deal but it may amount to a great deal to the people concerned if a proper quality of cement is not used for building operations. I know of my own personal knowledge of people who were foolish enough not to have obtained advice when erecting buildings. The foundations, which as Senator O'Connor stated are never seen, but which for all that are the most important part of the building, were made of this cheaper quality of cement, with very bad results. I think that in all the circumstances the Minister would be well advised to accept this amendment or the principle of the amendment if he does not accept the exact words.

I think I can claim, and I feel that Senator Sir John Griffith and those who are in a better position to know than I am will agree with me, that there is in this country an abundance of raw material to make a high quality standard cement. The raw materials are in abundance and if that is so, I do not see why we should not insist that people who are given licences for the manufacture of cement should be compelled by law to produce a minimum standard such as is known to the trade. I think it is also right, as Senator Douglas has stated in reply to Senator Dowdall, to say that the minimum standard is one thing but there is nothing to prevent a manufacturer producing higher grades if they are required or if there is a market available for them. The other point in the amendment is that we should not allow cement of a lower standard than the minimum standard to be imported. I think that in the interests of the community in general the Minister ought to make this order immediately. I venture to say, and I have a little knowledge of the building industry, that the Minister would be conferring a great boon on all concerned if a regulation were made to the effect that no cement of a quality under what is known as the specific standard should be allowed to be imported.

Mr. Crosbie

There is one provision that I should like to see in the Act and that is a provision to control the price of cement. Cement has become a necessity for a great many things and if we confer a monopoly on any company, they are very likely to make prices very much higher than they are at the moment.

Mr. Derrig

The position in regard to this amendment is that Mr. Lemass, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has been dealing with this matter personally. I know his intention was to set up a definite standard specification himself. In the Dáil he assured the House that, at least, the British standard specification for Portland cement would be maintained. There is no question whatever but that that standard can be maintained. I am in the position that I cannot say at the moment what is the standard of Belgian cement that is being imported in comparison with the British standard specification. What I do know is that the greater portion of our imported cement is coming from Belgium at present.

I could not bind myself at the moment to fix a standard specification on the British standard without having fuller information as to Continental standards. I think that in fact it is probable that all cement imported at present is of a higher standard than the British standard. It is the fact that for the past 30 years cement has been constantly improving in quality. That improvement is likely to continue so that the standard is bound to be higher in future. At present, as the Seanad knows, there is much competition and that in itself ensures that a fairly good standard will be maintained. I am not in a position to say definitely that all cement outside British cement that is being imported into the Free State at present is definitely of the British standard specification.

The intention is, so far as I understand, that after this Bill becomes law an import licence will be given and that a nominal fee would be charged for some time. I am in the position that if I accept this amendment I would be definitely placing upon merchants in the importation of their cement a condition which I fear might to some extent affect them and might tie them down as to the places, for example, where they might buy their cement or as to the quality they might import. Unless Senators can show that definite harm is being done at present by the importation of lower classes of cement, I am assuming that in fact practically all cement, even Continental cement, is of a higher quality than the British standard specification. If I were to accept the amendment in its present form I should have to tell every importer of cement in the country, immediately the Bill became law, that he must import cement of a certain specification. The Department of Industry and Commerce is not in a position at the moment and will not be for some time—if the policy which Mr. Lemass had in mind is to be carried out, to set up a standard specification—to ensure that the quality of imported cement will be at least as good as the British standard specification. To do that they would have simply to accept the British standard specification and say that that should be at least the minimum quality that the Department would allow merchants to import.

It is the policy of the Department to have a specification of their own, but unfortunately some time must elapse before the engineering associations and those interested can be got in touch with to devise a standard. It would be a matter for them to recommend to the Minister whether he should be satisfied with the British standard specification or whether he should go further. I feel that the actual making out of the specification may be rather troublesome, but at the moment the feeling in the Department is, and it has been Mr. Lemass's idea, that we should have our own specification and lay down that specification definitely. If this amendment were accepted by me it would, I fear, hold up operations in regard to the importation of cement, because we might not be in a position, in the event of our going ahead with our own specification, to state for some time what that specification would be. I have no fear that under the present provisions of the Bill the standard and quality of the cement cannot be sufficiently maintained, unless one is going to assume that the Minister has no interest whatever in maintaining the standard. He himself has stated that it is his intention to maintain at least the British standard specification. Unless it is assumed here in the Seanad that the Minister is wilfully going to allow people to manufacture cement under that standard, I cannot understand what the objection is to giving the Minister more discretion in the matter.

I should like to recall to the House also that there are definite provisions in the Bill which make it clear that there has to be a definite adherence to a proper specification. For example, in Section 12 (h) it is laid down that the Minister may specify in a manufacturing licence the nature and quality of the cement to be manufactured. I do not think it is likely that the Minister, having given his word in the matter, is likely to neglect to do that or, as Senators fear, he may decree one standard in respect of one licence and another standard in respect of some other licence. I do not think that is likely to arise.

The Minister when he does prescribe the quality of the cement will prescribe the same standard in each case. In Section 30 it is prescribed that it shall not be lawful for any person to import any cement into the Saorstát unless such cement is of the nature and quality specified in the import licence. It may happen that an importer at present is importing cement which may not be exactly of the standard specification that the Minister wishes to lay down but that the importer is ready to fall in with the Minister's wishes. Is the Minister arbitrarily to compel the importer to import cement of the quality that he specifies; or, if the importer satisfies the Minister that his cement is of good quality, but that in regard to a particular consignment, for example, there may be a particular position, is the Minister going to interfere with the importer's business generally or is he to be asked to lay down definitely in advance a specification that he has no proof that the importer may be able to reach? While I feel that it is the case that all cement imported from Continental countries is above the British specification, I am not in a position to say that the amendment can be accepted because I do not know that definitely. I feel it is the position but it may conceivably happen that people who will be importing cement in the next few months may already have made arrangements. If this amendment were accepted the Minister would be definitely bound in advance to refuse to allow these people to import that cement. I think he should be given some discretion in the matter.

It is prescribed in the section which I have already quoted, Section 30, that it shall not be lawful for any person to import cement into the Saorstát unless it is of the nature and quality specified in the import licence. That is a matter that can be gone into again in the Department but I would ask the Seanad to give us a further opportunity to consider this question. The Minister is pledged to see that a specification is set up. The only question is one of time, and whether we are now going to compel the Minister to do something which he may have to do in the next two or three weeks. His own feeling is that he should be given a little more time to endeavour to see whether he can set up a Saorstát specification.

Section 31 provides that every import licence must state the nature and quality of the cement proposed to be imported, so that as regards this licence full particulars will be published in the Official Gazette. Full particulars will be given in respect of each licence in regard to the nature and quality of the cement and other matters. I have no objection to the general principle of the amendment, but in view of the circumstances that I have explained—that the policy of the Department at the moment is to set up a specification of their own, and that they will not be in a position to name that specification immediately after the Bill becomes law—I would ask that the Minister, in view of the difficulties that would arise in regard to import licences, should be given a discretion. I would ask, in view of the difficulties which would arise in regard to import licences, that the Minister should be given a discretion. I can promise the House that an endeavour will be made to get this standard specification, which is sought, definitely published as soon as possible.

Mr. Johnson

I think the matter regarding the manufacture, and the standard for manufacture, is safe enough because the period which will elapse between the passing of the Bill and the sale of home-manufactured cement will be considerable. But in the matter of the importation the Minister's case seems to me to be weak inasmuch as it foresees the possibility that, shall I say, a second quality cement is being imported and may continue to be imported for some time. The Minister argues that there is a standard specification being prepared, and that it may not be ready for some time. In the meantime, there will be licences given for import. The Minister thinks that all the cement that is being imported is above the British standard. In that case there should be no difficulty in specifying the British standard at the beginning, because it is possible, under this proposed new section, to alter the specification to a higher level when the Minister so thinks proper. I hope it is true—I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's assurance or, at least, his belief—that all the cement that is being imported is above the British standard.

Mr. Derrig

I cannot say definitely that that is the case. I have no definite evidence to show that cement below that standard is not being imported.

Mr. Johnson

And that is where I feel the danger lies. If some cement that is below the British standard is being imported, and if in the next few weeks that amount is increased, then there is a real danger. I think there ought not to be any cement imported below the standard which is approved of by the Minister. He has assured us that it will not be less than the British standard. Now public faith in this matter is a considerable factor. The belief of the public, whether it is well founded or not, is an important matter. Within the last few weeks I have come across cases in which there is the belief in the minds of builders that there is a good deal of low quality cement being imported. That is the cause of many complaints that are being uttered. My own opinion is that the complaints that are being uttered about concrete lie mainly in the method of mixing and not in the quality of the cement, but if builders and the public have got the notion that there is the possibility of low quality cement being imported, then the sooner that belief, if it is wrong, should be eradicated the better. If it is a correct belief then there is all the more reason why it should be stopped, and stopped as soon as possible. On a superficial view nobody can tell whether cement is of first, second or third quality, but we know, as a matter of fact, that there is a good deal of cheap cement coming into the country. That would suggest the possibility that if there is any second or third quality cement in the world some of it may come to the country where it is being sold cheaply.

I do not think the Minister's intentions or desires will be thwarted at all by the acceptance of this amendment. In fact, I think they will be confirmed and assured by its acceptance. The fears that are expressed—that I and others expressed—will be removed if assurances are given, and if the law insists, that cement only of high quality will be imported and used in building. It is a very urgent matter that the public should be assured that the cement that is going into the building of houses is of high quality, and that there is no inferior cement being embodied in the concrete houses that are going up.

Colonel Moore

I listened to the Minister's speech. He talked very ingeniously around the subject, but I confess that I can see no harm in putting into the Bill what the Minister himself said it was his intention to carry out. I know that in past times, when certain matters were raised, the excuse was given that these were not in the Bill. I always like to see things down in black and white, so that there can be no misunderstanding or mistake about them afterwards. I am not opposing the Minister at all, but I would ask him to put in the Bill what he himself has said he wants done. He said several times that it was the right and the proper thing to do, and that his only difficulty was that he was speaking on behalf of another Minister. I have no doubt that if the other Minister were here he would agree to put what has been stated in the Bill. I would ask the present Minister to do so now.

Mr. Counihan

The Minister has stated that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is going to set up a special standard for the cement that is to be imported and for the cement that is to be manufactured here. He admitted that it will be a considerable time before they can decide on that standard. That is all the more reason, I think, why the Minister should agree to take steps now to prevent the dumping of poor quality cement in this country. I think he should agree to accept the amendment, and even go further by making an order immediately that no cement be allowed in that is not up to the British standard. Farmers and others using cement in small quantities will not waste time and labour in carrying out tests to see whether the imported cement is up to the required standard. It is only builders in a large way of business who will carry out such tests. Therefore, for the protection of the ordinary people, immediate steps should be taken to prevent the dumping here of cement that is not up to the British standard.

Mr. Brown

It is quite obvious as Senator Johnson has explained, that the real danger lies in the cement that is imported, and not in the cement manufactured here, because the quantity manufactured at present is very small. It is not likely to increase very much before the Minister has an opportunity of finally fixing his standard. But, so far as the importation of cement is concerned, there is a real danger that a bad class of cement will be introduced into the country.

Mr. Derrig

Why is it not being introduced at present?

Mr. Johnson

Who knows that it is not?

Mr. Brown

I have no personal knowledge that it is coming in.

Mr. Derrig

We have no proof of that either.

Mr. Brown

I am sure that the Minister is quite as anxious as we are that no cement, below a certain minimum quality, should be imported. I agree that time may be wanted in order to settle what is to be our final standard specification, but this amendment gives the Minister the right to revoke and amend his order—to issue a substituted order. What I would suggest to him is that he should accept the amendment and at once make and publish an order specifying his standard specification, saying whether it should be the British, the German or the American standard. While he is waiting to get information and instructions from his Department as to what the final specification is to be, steps should be taken to ensure that nothing under a certain minimum quality is going to be allowed in.

Mr. Douglas

I would like to point out that this amendment did not originate in the heads of one or two of us who are not experts. It was proposed as a result of representations made on behalf of engineers. The Minister says that he would like time to consult with the Engineering Association in order to arrive at what would be a satisfactory Irish standard. With that, I think all of us are in agreement. So far as time is concerned, I do not think that any of us want to create a difficulty. I think that the Minister, in the course of his speech, showed a misunderstanding as to the attitude taken by some of us. He said in effect, "if you press the amendment it means that you do not take the Minister's word that he will apply the standard he spoke of." With great respect, it does not mean anything of the kind. It means that we in this House think that for the future management here it is better to have the State standard which the Minister will set up rather than an assurance that that standard will be applied in each specific licence to import. I think that what we suggest would prove a better, a healthier and a more satisfactory way of dealing with this. When you want to limit your imports you will possibly have to specify a higher quality or a special quality of cement because you will not want to have imported the quality which may be manufactured here. There is a provision in the Bill to meet that. I am not speaking for others, but personally if the Minister would give us a promise that for the immediate licences that are going to be issued he would ask the Department to look into the matter and see if it is not possible to specify either the German standard or the British standard, then it might be possible to withdraw the amendment and put it down for Report, provided that the Minister shall not longer than say six months from the passing of the Bill set up a standard and provide that after that date no licence will be granted to import anything below that standard. If time is required to set up a standard then I think reasonable time should be given.

I appreciate the Minister's unwillingness to pledge himself to any particular standard immediately this Bill becomes law. I gathered from his speech that he feels a difficulty in respect to the fact that a special preference is being given to no cement outside of Great Britain. He is particularly anxious that he should not be asked to apply the British standard. That could be got over by applying the German standard which, except in some small details, would be equally good. What we are asking is that a provision be inserted in the Bill to the effect that after a reasonably early date a statutory standard for cement will be set up and that it will not be possible for the Department to vary that standard. There is the danger where you have to apply your standard in the case of each licence that you will apply a very high standard in the case of one licence because you want to limit imports to that particular standard, and apply a different standard to another licence because of the fact that the manufacturers are not able to supply the full demands at a particular time. That might easily lead to the suspicion, which may not be well founded, that one person is allowed to get in one standard and another person a different standard. If you have one standard laid down by order, then there can be no question whatever of unfairness as between one person and another. Nobody here suggests that there is the slightest danger, so far as the Minister is concerned, of anything unfair occurring in the Department. We do not, of course, assume that the present Minister will be there for ever. We think there might be another Minister and that he might set a different standard. That is not what is in our mind and, therefore, we think the better way to deal with it is by publishing the specification which will be the minimum test.

Mr. Derrig

Unfortunately the Minister has to look at the administrative difficulties in these matters. The House has been assured, and Senator Johnson at any rate has accepted the position that, as far as the manufacture of cement is concerned this amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Brown

Not immediately necessary, but certainly necessary afterwards.

Mr. Derrig

This makes it necessary. The general feeling the last day was that there was a danger of the price and the quality being interfered with. We have no definite evidence that the quality of the cement is not of a good standard. A doubt seems to exist. I cannot deny that such is the case, but, on the strength of the doubt, we are asked to make an order under which the Revenue Commissioners, presumably, will have to analyse the cement. The procedure laid down by the Minister is that a person applies for a licence, states the kind of cement he proposes to import, the place where he is going to import it, and the amount. All that is in the Bill. The Minister grants a licence accordingly and particulars appear in the Official Gazette. When granting the licence he states that unless it is of a certain quality he will refuse it. Having examined the position, and having published particulars in the Official Gazette, if the Minister grants a licence under these conditions, I think the position is much simpler. It may not satisfy the Seanad absolutely that what they have in mind will be carried out as well as if the present amendment was accepted. But I see administrative difficulties. If it is the position, as I think it is, that practically all the cement is over the standard, what is the objection to giving the Minister some discretion? Is it argued that during the next few months the position will change from what it has been for years? If we had to go to contractors and say that we were not satisfied with the cement they are importing, that they would have to import cement of a certain specification, should we not, at least, allow the importers to make a case to the Minister, stating the kind of cement they are importing over the transitory period, which, in any case, must be short? The Department are anxious to safeguard the position, so that there should be some discretion with the Minister when dealing with these cases. I do not know why the Seanad insists on forcing the Minister in advance to lay down the specification in regard to import licences, because there has been no general outcry against the quality of the cement. I do not think Senators should insist on the specification for importation if they are not prepared to say, apart from the Bill, that they know that cement of a bad quality is being supplied; unless there was a real necessity for a specification at the moment why cannot we allow the existing position to continue?

The object of the Minister is to safeguard manufacturers who may set up here. The whole object of the Bill is to maintain that position. The Minister has assured the House that as regards the cement standard to be manufactured here the position will be definitely safeguarded. The other position the Minister has to watch is that people who start to manufacture here, if it so happen, will not be undercut by the sudden dumping of cement at very low prices. The Minister has additional powers to deal with that situation, so that I cannot understand why the amendment should be insisted upon. I appreciate Senator Johnson's point. It may be that bad cement is being imported, but unless we feel that the situation existed, apart from the present proposals altogether, why should we force this specification on importers, when we know that 99 per cent. of them are in fact importing cement of that specification? The amendment seems to me to be quite unnecessary.

Mr. Johnson

I would like to emphasise the point that the Minister will be issuing licences in respect of a certain quality. Surely he will have to be satisfied that the quality is above a certain specification. In that case there is no difficulty. On the other hand, he says that there has been no general complaint. I am not prepared to say that there is a single ounce of bad cement coming into the country. But I put this to the Minister, that on large contracts, in which engineers and architects are all concerned, they must specify a certain standard of cement, but that on small contracts, in which there is no engineer and no architect, price is the chief factor. No one is to know, unless there is something like a standard specification or something like a guarantee given, whether X Y Z cement or A B C cement is above or below a particular standard. The introduction of this Bill gives an opportunity to do what I think ought to have been done. The fact that the opportunity is here, and without any administrative difficulty, is a justification for doing now what probably should have been done always. Consider the consequences of using a quality of cement that does not conform to a standard. No matter how careful the mixer may be, if the cement is not good, it will show defects in a short time, but the job has been done and the damage cannot be remedied. If it is possible to save, at the cost of some small administrative difficulty, even ten houses in the country from ruin in five years' time, it is very well worth the trouble. There is a suspicion abroad—probably quite unfounded; possibly fomented by an unjustifiable prejudice against the use of concrete—that cheap cement means bad cement. A prejudice is being created against concrete on the ground that cement is cheap and on the ground that it is of bad quality. Defects are alleged and the explanation given is that the quality is bad, that people must not rely upon foreign cement, and that we used to get British cement which was always good. In those days there were not so many houses built of concrete. Now that houses are built of concrete, of which cement is an essential factor, in my view it is imperative that the public, who have to build houses with cement, and who will be expected to live in them, should be assured that no defects are going to arise by virtue of the importation of cement of a quality not up to the recognised standard. Whatever administrative difficulties there are, they would be very small indeed, and the question of overcoming them will be small, compared with the difficulties that would be caused by the importation of bad or of second or third quality cement. There is the advantage of giving to the public who are to be the users, either as builders or residents of houses built of concrete, the assurance that the quality of the cement which has gone into the buildings was up to the standard. That would be worth all the administrative difficulties.

Mr. Farren

It appears to me that the Minister has been most unconvincing in his arguments. He stated that there might be administrative difficulties if the amendment was accepted. He went on to say that this might be done by regulation. Well, would there not be the same administrative difficulties if it had to be done by legislation?

Mr. Derrig

No. Better leave it to the Minister.

Mr. Farren

I do not like the Minister to take up the position that we are arguing this question because we have not confidence in the Minister. That is not the issue. I believe that there should not be free importation of cement, unless it was up to standard specification, more particularly—and I want the Minister to take particular notice of this—because of the activities that there are now with regard to house building. It is the duty of the State to see that when people are investing all they have, and pledging their future earnings in the purchase of these little houses, the materials that have gone into the houses are up to standard quality, so that the houses will give the return to which the people are entitled. The future of most of the people who are buying these houses will be pledged for 30 or 40 years. They will be making a tremendous struggle to repay the principal and interest on the money they borrowed, in addition to the cash that they paid down. It is due to them that the State should see that their interests are protected. On all large contracts being carried out by local authorities, such as the building of blocks of 500 or 600 houses the engineers will insist on cement of the proper specification being used. There is no difficulty about this matter in connection with public works, such as roads, because the engineers will specify the quality. In the case of persons who are not in a position to employ engineers and architects there will be a danger. I am pleading for them. I do not think there will be any hardship if this amendment is embodied in the Bill. If we believe in the principle of the amendment why not put it in the Bill? From what the Ministers stated they believe that we should aim at a standard not less than what is known as the British standard. I am not arguing for that because it is a British standard. I am doing so in order that the cement will be of a certain standard. That is the real reason why we should put this amendment into the Bill. It is false economy to use bad cement. There will be no injury inflicted on anyone who wants to import different brands or to get as much as they require. Different countries may manufacture different qualities of cement. There is no difficulty in getting an abundance of cement of the standard required. As we believe in the principle of the amendment the proper thing is to have it included in the Bill.

Miss Browne

Why cannot the Minister be honest and say once and for all that he wants to boycott good British cement, in order to carry out his policy?

Sir John Griffith

I fear I have given rise to a good deal of trouble by what I stated at the last meeting. I think it urgent that the House should adopt a standard test, and I was very glad to hear the Minister saying that he is thinking about a standard for Ireland. That will take some time. He ought to consult the best advisers he can find, both engineers and architects, because it will take time. If by this time next year the Minister has got a standard specification I think he will be very fortunate. My position is this: that at the start the country ought to be safeguarded by a type of standard which is recognised practically all over the world. My own leanings would be for the British standard. I know the men associated with it, and I know the work that was done in fixing that standard. It is a standard which has grown from year to year as experimental work revealed further improvements. You need not be afraid in adopting a standard test, that you are approaching perfection. All you are doing is safeguarding your inhabitants against very dangerous material not being thoroughly sound. My own wish would be that the House would adopt the amendment, and that the Minister would have full liberty to insert in the Bill that the cement is not to be below the British standard. If he does that he safeguards the position for himself and for the general public, and in time a specification will be drawn up which may be an improvement on the British standard. That is the reason why I strongly advocate adoption of the amendment. It gives the Minister absolute power to set a standard in the beginning, and to improve that standard as soon as he has got sufficient information. It is of immense importance to the building trade, to engineers, to architects and to the public at large that Irish cement should be a safe and a sound article. The Senators who spoke did not, I think, exaggerate the dangers with which this country is surrounded in dealing with the open market for cement. In Ireland there is no official test of cement that I know of. Individuals test it and engineers test it, but when I came to this country, before the days of standards, there was a variation of specifications that led to confusion, causing great difficulties and cost. There is one point I would like to mention. Manufacturing firms are going to be invited to Ireland. Unless you are able to tell them that you are setting up a minimum standard they will not spend money erecting works for an unknown quality. There are numbers of manufacturers of cement who, I think, would gladly come here. If you have not a starting standard to which they will build I am afraid you will find great difficulty in getting them to come.

Mr. Brown

There is one administrative difficulty which the Minister mentioned that really will not exist. He said that if a standard was set up now, to apply during the time which must elapse before he fixes his own standard, the customs officers will have to see by analysis that what comes in complies with that. They will have to do that in every case in which a licence is issued, and to prescribe the quality. They will have very great difficulty because the quality may not be always the same.

Mr. Derrig

How can we be told whether the quality is right or not in the last analysis? The proposition in the amendment seems to me to be that the Revenue Commissioners will have to ascertain if the quality of the cement is in accordance with the specification. Even if there are small quantities of bad cement being imported it would be very difficult to follow them. Senator Farren stated that I was unconvincing in my statement. Of course any Minister is unconvincing if he pleads for more discretion for himself and for his Department. I would like to say to the Senator as regards these proposals that nothing very definite has been done yet. That is all the more reason, in connection with the different groups interested, the Minister should have fairly full discretion, and that a definite obligation should not be put upon him which would tend to limit that discretion. Senator Sir John Griffith still seems anxious to know whether the Minister is in fact going to consult the Engineering Association. I have already stated that we hope to have the advice of the Senator himself and the association with which he is connected. We are going to consult them before we take any steps. In the meantime there is a lapse of time, and I submit had this Bill not been before the House, the question of the importation of cement would not be brought up and we would not be asked to take specific action in regard to a matter about which there is no public demand. Senator Sir John Griffith suggested that this question was a source of worry to engineers. Senator Johnson admitted that on all public works there is supervision by an engineer, an architect or a clerk of works, whose duty it is to lay it down definitely that in contracts only cement of a certain standard specification can be utilised. What is the case for the amendment? If there are isolated cases of individuals using cement I do not know if Senator Johnson thinks that we should push the regulations to the extent of interfering with their business, if we know that, as regards the mass of public works, there are at present adequate safeguards in the contracts.

Mr. Johnson

I think if the Minister inquires he will find that the specification for houses does not declare the quality of the cement.

Mr. Derrig

Senator Sir John Griffith also mentioned that the specification may be varied from time to time. This amendment proposes to take away the discretion to vary it.

Mr. Brown

No.

Mr. Derrig

The Minister has to bring the matter before both Houses and there will be a full discussion. At a critical point regarding the importation of cement the Minister may have to come to the House and say: "In regard to a case I have in hands, with regard to a particular licence which I propose to grant, I find I cannot carry out the wishes of the Seanad." This House and the Dáil will then be in a position to discuss the whole order. That is binding the Minister unnecessarily, when there is an assurance that, as far as he can, he will maintain a standard specification, and when his only anxiety is to get some discretion and to get some reasonable time to see whether a Saorstát Eireann national specification cannot be laid down. The sum and substance of the whole matter is that generally the cement imported at present must be of good quality. We know that prices are lower in this country than anywhere else, so that no particular economic necessity arises. There is no urge on the part of people who want to get ahead with their work, or to import other classes of cement, when they can get the best quality at a very low price. I cannot see what justification there is for the persistent desire—if I might put it that way—to doubt the Minister, when Senators know generally what he will do, and that he will be responsible for whatever action he may take.

Mr. O'Farrell

I am afraid the Minister is not going to be convincing. His principal case against the amendment is based on administrative difficulties. In effect he said that the carrying of the amendment would mean that the revenue authorities would have to analyse the quality of consignments of cement that came in. If that is the position under the amendment as proposed it is also the position in the Bill as it stands. Section 30 reads:

(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to import any cement into Saorstát Eireann unless—

(a) such person is the holder of a licence (in this Part of this Act referred to as an import licence) granted by the Minister under this Part of this Act authorising him to import cement, and

(b) such cement is of the nature and quality specified in such licence, and,

Who is to say that the cement imported is of the nature specified in the licence? Does not that mean that someone will occasionally have to analyse or to test it, just as would be the case in the amendment? Obviously in matters of this kind every consignment that comes in is not analysed. Surprise tests are made here and there. There is a standard brand available by which a test can be made without any trouble. The Minister puts up another objection which is not very sound when he says that if he wants to alter the regulations he has to go to each House, at which there might be full dress debates and the importation of cement might be held up. He has not got to come to the House at all if he makes a regulation annulling or altering provisions laid on the Table of each House, which operate after ten days, without any discussion unless one of the Houses annuls it by resolution.

Mr. Douglas

It operates at once.

Mr. Derrig

What position is the Minister in?

Mr. O'Farrell

Surely the Minister is going to look more than ten days ahead in regard to regulations in matters of that kind. He is not going to make a regulation that he wants to operate to-morrow. There is no use in putting up bogus opposition to this amendment. The position at present is that anyone can import cement, that there is world-wide competition and national competition. Under this Bill it is sought to give a monopoly to a few people and, to that extent, consumers are at their mercy. In giving a monopoly it is only reasonable that we should insist that there should be a certain minimum standard, below which cement will not be imported. It is quite a different matter when there is a local market with free trade as compared with giving a monopoly to a comparatively few people. The question of administrative difficulties has been insufficiently explained. There are no administrative difficulties which are not enshrined in the Bill as it stands. There is no suggestion of unnecessary hampering or restricting the Minister. The amendment merely suggests putting in statutory form what the Minister says is his desire. That being the case, I see no reason why it should not be adopted. The interests of those building houses, and of those living in them, and the construction of roads, bridges or other works in which cement is used, are of far more importance than a few petty administrative difficulties in any particular Department.

Mr. Derrig

It is very easy for Senator O'Farrell to refer to petty administrative difficulties when he knows nothing of the position from the Departmental point of view. It is very easy, of course, for the Senator to get up and attack the Minister who is endeavouring to carry out these complicated proposals, and endeavouring to have a certain amount of discretion, and to say that it is a bogus opposition. It is not a bogus opposition, and it is not a feeling that I have, I may say, that the Seanad have not confidence in the Minister. I know very well that the Seanad are anxious to co-operate with the Minister, as far as possible, but they want to be quite certain that the position will be right, and they feel that it can only be made right by this amendment. Senator O'Farrell referred to building in the country generally and to the public interest. One would imagine, from the Senator's tirade, although nobody has been able to state definitely that bad cement is being imported in any large quantities, and although, as I have already said, there are sufficient safeguards there already, that, if this amendment were not accepted, some dreadful situation, which nobody thought of during the last ten years, was going to arise tomorrow or the day after, and that there is going to be some wholesale importation of bad cement. The Senator also got somewhat confused when he referred to this amendment in connection with cement manufacture. Senator Johnson admits that, so far as cement manufacture is concerned, the position is alright. The Minister has definitely given his assurance to both Houses, and that ought to be sufficient, that he will have a standard specification set up, and that the quality laid down in Section 12 as the quality which must be prescribed in the licence he gives for manufacture will be of the proper standard.

Mr. O'Farrell

I made no reference whatever to manufacture. I referred simply to the importation of cement, and I am not referring at all to Irish cement manufactured here. The Minister must not overstate the case. He has already overstated what I have said.

Mr. Derrig

The Senator definitely mentioned that, if this were not accepted, it was going to prejudice, in some way, unless I misinterpreted him, the manufacture of cement. It has nothing to do with the manufacture of cement, which will not take place for a year and a half or two years, in any event, and which, I submit, is fully safeguarded. The question is whether, during the interval we are now red-hot, as some Senator put it, to compel the Minister to do something where he thinks he ought to have further discretion— to say to importers, who he knows are practically all men of repute, good businessmen, and men who are importing best quality cement at a very low price at present, and cannot have any reason for endeavouring to import low quality cement, that they must submit to a certain specification. We are not to be satisfied with the conditions laid down by which, when they are applying for a licence, the Minister has to be satisfied that the quality is right under all the circumstances, and the Minister holds them to it in the licence he gives. The Seanad wants to co-operate with the Minister. I would suggest that they might leave this matter over for the Minister to consider. Definitely to ask the Minister, in a matter like this, in which it is admitted by Senator Sir John Griffith a change may have to be made, that the whole matter may have to come up before both Houses of the Oireachtas again, would, anybody will recognise, hamper the administration.

Mr. Johnson

May I point out one fact? I quoted last week the average price of imports of cement into Dublin for the first three months of this year, and I said that the price was about 30/6 per ton. Deputy Good told the Dáil that he could buy cement to-day at 26/-. That alone would suggest that we ought to be careful.

Mr. Derrig

Have we not full power to deal with that, under Part V, where we lay down the nature and quality of the cement and a number of other conditions, such as the quantity, the place where the cement may be imported, and so on? I think the Seanad ought to recognise that, as regards the big question, which is to see that cement is not imported of such quality or at such a price that it is going to interfere with these industries, it surely is the Minister's policy definitely to see that it is not going to interfere with the manufacture of cement here at home.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment 3.

New section. Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—

12. The Minister shall attach to every licence a condition that the rates of wages that are paid and the conditions of labour that are observed in the manufacture of cement at such factory or in the production by or on behalf of the holder of the licence of raw materials used for such manufacture which are produced in Saorstát Eireann shall be at least as advantageous to the persons employed in such manufacture or such production as the appropriate rates of wages or conditions of labour generally recognised by trade unions in comparable employment.

This is a section which seeks to make it a condition of every licence of manufacture that the rates of wages to be paid in the actual manufacture and in the production of the materials for manufacture by the company shall be, at least, as advantageous as the wages paid in comparable employment. I confess that there is a little difficulty in the drafting of this clause inasmuch as what is comparable employment may be a question. As to the principle, I cannot imagine the Minister or the Department objecting, when similar conditions have been inserted in other Bills of a similar nature, but, as there is no cement manufacture in the country, it may be said that comparable employment does not exist, and that, therefore, the standard on which to make the test is not available. The difficulty, however, is not, I think, one that is insuperable, and, if any question arose as to what was comparable employment, the Minister by reference to an arbitrator could easily solve it, and, if it were requisite to insert a further provision on that point, it could be done. On the principle that the rate of wages and conditions in the manufacture shall be fair, I do not imagine there can be any serious opposition. Certain provisions are to be inserted in the Bill regarding a number of things, and this is one of great importance because I take it that everybody knows that the manufacture of cement will be a highly mechanised business, and that the human labour that will be engaged will be engaged in a very pleasant occupation in so far as the dust side of cement manufacture affects the conditions. There may be little difficulty in persuading the manufacturing company that the wages paid in the factory itself shall be fair, because the relative wages cost in this manufacture will probably be very low, but the company may, and, probably, will, be involved in the gathering together and production of the materials to be used in the factory, and this proposed section will include the conditions and wages paid in the preparation of materials, which may be outside the factory. That is a matter of importance and we ought not to begin this operation of cement manufacture with any misunderstanding as to the conditions under which manufacturers will start their work. If they come along and make proposals without regard to the possibilities of rates of wages, there might be misunderstanding in the very early stages of their manufacture, whereas, if they know beforehand that they will be expected to pay fair wages to those engaged in the operations, there is very much less likelihood of any trouble ensuing once manufacture has begun. It is for those reasons I propose the amendment.

Mr. Derrig

It has not been the practice, in connection with the Government's industrial policy, to impose conditions in Acts dealing, for example, with the protection of industries that have passed through the Oireachtas. I understand that we have not imposed conditions with regard to wages. I think that Senator Johnson will recognise that, in the first place, it places a definite responsibility on the Minister and, as we have had experience recently in other directions, it is very unfortunate, I think, that other parties should be able to rid themselves of responsibility in connection with wage disputes and so on, and that they should be able to transfer their responsibilities to a Minister of State. It seems to me that there should be machinery set up outside to deal with that position and that it would be far better for both workers and employers if there was a regular industrial machinery to which both sides could apply and which would settle these disputes outside Government interference altogether. I think the Seanad understands that, at the present moment, that particular matter is being investigated by the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is recognised that some steps should be taken to endeavour to regulate the wage rates in protected industries and to set up machinery to settle disputes and I think the Minister has had in mind the calling into action of the Trade Boards and, possibly, the setting up of additional machinery to deal with the matter. Senators Farren and Johnson must be aware that, in regard to certain industries, these negotiations have been going on and that the Minister had been hopeful of being able to produce a definite legislative plan which he would put before both Houses to set up this machinery in respect of all these industries.

I am, of course, quite favourable to the principle of the amendment, but I have to recognise that, in the first place, as I say, it puts a definite responsibility on the Minister which I think the Minister should not have. I think that unless there is State capital in the industry or the Minister is directly connected with the industry as Minister, he should not, merely by virtue of the fact that he is Minister for Industry and Commerce, be called on to settle disputes which, ordinarily, should be settled between the parties themselves. I think the amendment would have the effect of placing a definite responsibility on the Minister for Industry and Commerce which he would not like to have. While he may be fully sympathetic to the point of view that fair wages should be paid and a fair wages clause inserted in all contracts, I think the Senator will recognise that the Minister, who, in the nature of things, has to please so many different elements of the community is about the last person who should be asked to act as arbitrator in these matters and, if we accept this amendment, it will be sought to put a definite responsibility on the Minister for seeing that this condition regarding wages is carried out. In addition to that, as I said, negotiations are going on at present with a view to ascertaining how best machinery might be set up to deal with this problem over all our industries, and if I accepted the amendment now I should be doing something which Mr. Lemass has refused to do up to the present. His attitude, I feel certain, would be that, if we accepted the amendment, we should be doing something in regard to this particular proposal which has not, in fact, been done for all the other industries and that, if we are going to move for the settlement of disputes and the setting up of wage boards and so on, we should do it in a regular and thorough manner and should not do it by means of clauses in particular Bills. I think that is the attitude of the Minister.

Colonel Moore

I could not approve of this amendment because I do not think the Minister is the proper person to decide these questions. Very often he sits down, waits and tries to get the different parties to come to some settlement amongst themselves and he is frequently called upon to act as mediator in settling these disputes. If he is to be told that he is to be a partisan in the matter I think it is very bad policy. I could not support the amendment.

Mr. O'Farrell

The Minister seems to think that this is a new principle that the House has been asked to adopt. Surely he is aware that an amendment almost identical in wording to this was inserted in the Cereals Bill. A somewhat similar amendment was inserted in the Housing Bill. An amendment similar in character and absolutely similar in principle was inserted in the Road Transport Act which has only just passed the House, and in the Road Transport Act of 1932, so that there is no new principle involved here. The argument in favour of inserting it in the Road Transport Act was that we were giving special facilities, by legislative action, in the form of a monopoly to certain people to trade in a particular way. We offered it to them free of all competition in future. We gave them certain legislative safeguards. In return for that we made it a condition, which I think was universally supported, that they should, in employing people, observe at least the conditions of employment that obtained in similar comparable industries elsewhere. In transport, one has to look for a comparable industry, but nevertheless it was accepted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce without any great opposition and was enshrined in these Bills. It is quite true that sometimes the Minister would be the very last person that Labour would like to have regulating rates of wages. I am sure none of us would look to the Minister for Finance as a suitable person to fix rates of wages, judging by another Bill which is to come forward this evening, and we certainly should not like to have to look to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who fixed 24/- per week as the standard rate for a man with a family, but we should at least aim at establishing the principle that where special advantages by legislative action are conferred upon any set of employers in this case giving them a monopoly, they shall observe what are looked upon as reasonable conditions of employment. That is what the amendment asks. The form of the amendment is only a matter of detail, but the principle I think is incontestable and has been already accepted in regard to a number of Bills.

Mr. Douglas

The principle enunciated by Senator O'Farrell in the latter part of his speech is one with which I think most of us would agree. That is, that trade union wages and conditions generally must be accepted as the principle of working in any trade or industry, particularly one that has obtained an advantage from the State.

Sir John Keane

What about agriculture?

Mr. Douglas

I am not however at all certain that you can gain any advantage whatever by attempting to make the Minister the person who shall set down the conditions as the result of giving a licence. I know that, in a rather milk-and-water way, the idea has been introduced into other Bills, but I doubt very much if it will work. I doubt if it will be to the advantage of Labour. I have never stood for getting labour conditions down to bottom, and I do not stand for it now. I believe that good wages in an industry obtained by friendly cooperation between workers and employers are good for the industry. Sometimes conditions outside may force the standard of wages down, but I believe that it is as much in the interest of the employer, as it is of the worker, that as high a rate of wages as possible should be paid in an industry. I do not believe however in attaching to a licence a form setting out that the conditions of employment shall be as advantageous as elsewhere, or that the rates of wages shall be as high as are paid in comparable employment, and then providing, as you have further on in the Bill, that for any breach of the conditions an employer is liable to a fine of £50 per day. I suggest that conditions of that kind are very largely a matter of opinion, and that they could not be very well interpreted in courts. I do not know what would be the position of an employer who found that it was a condition of his licence that the terms of employment in his manufacture should be at least as good as were observed in comparable employment. That comparable employment might improve at a particular time, and then this man might by that very fact find that he was guilty of a breach of his licence.

I am all in favour of working in agreement with trades unions, and I do not believe any other way of regulating conditions will be found satisfactory. I do not believe that the method proposed in the amendment would be workable, or that it would be satisfactory. It is not an amendment that, in anything like its present shape, I should be personally prepared to support. The less disputes one has with the trades union the better, but disputes do arise occasionally, and very often the Minister's intervention is sought, and he succeeds in bringing about an adjustment. Now you are putting him in the position of a person who more or less specifies the conditions of employment, and that, to my mind, would be highly undesirable. While such a provision stands, I suggest nobody can take action in court against the firm for failure to comply with the conditions of their licence. The onus will really be on the Minister. In 99 cases out of 100 the Minister would have to take the onus of deciding whether the conditions were complied with or not. I believe it would be better for the employees if the Minister were in an independent position as at present. He would not be in an independent position if this amendment were adopted. I am not out of sympathy with the object aimed at in the amendment, but I do not believe that you will get the protection which is sought by the method proposed in the amendment.

Sir John Keane

I am not out of sympathy with any movement to better the lot of mankind, but I am out of sympathy with any system which singles out one class of manufacturer for preferential treatment. One must consider that the mass of our people are working at rates of wages which are very low. Surely the Labour Party ought to be satisfied with the security contained in the whole of the Bill. Here is a Bill which gives a legal monopoly to a certain industry, and it is the experience of all of us that in the case of all legal monopolies capital and labour combine to raise the price of the commodity. That is the invariable experience of all of us, and it should have given Labour all the security they want. I think in asking to have this amendment passed, they are asking for what is unreasonable.

Mr. Johnson

I am surprised at the way this discussion has gone. To begin with the Minister takes the line which is the line taken by Senator Douglas, that he will be expected to make the conditions. I could well have understood the plea that there would be no need to put this section in because the Minister was going to make the conditions under the next amendment, but the Minister's case is against the next amendment and not against this one. Senator Douglas backed him up in that. This is not asking the Minister to make the conditions. This is making the conditions and relieving the Minister of the liability for making the conditions. It is attaching to a licence a certain condition, and if the condition is broken, then the licensee is liable to penalties. The principle at stake is one of importance. Here is the State giving monopolies of certain manufactures of a new kind which will involve skilled labour of a highly specialised nature, no doubt. The monopoly will also involve unskilled labour in the factory, not specialised but very strenuous, no doubt. It will also involve a great deal of unskilled labour in other directions outside the factory. We have been told by the way that there is plenty of raw materials in all parts of the country. As things are, there is nothing at all to give any assurance that wages and conditions outside the factory and, for the unskilled labour, inside the factory will conform to anything like a reasonable standard. In fact the chances are that the endeavour will be to buy labour in the cheapest market, and on the other hand the effort will be possibly to sell labour at the highest price which the merchants are prepared to pay. If the organisation of the labourers can be tuned up, no doubt they will be able to obtain fair rates of wages, but if by virtue of the large amount of unskilled labour that is offering—unskilled labour which is normally operating at unskilled labour jobs, also people who are not normally on offer for that kind of job, but who are ready to do it when called upon—the employers can pick and choose, and unless there is some effort to safeguard rates of wages, then the rates of wages will be depressed. Surely, when we are enumerating the very considerable number of conditions already there, the Minister's functions are not going to be added to very greatly if we make this further provision. The employer will be liable to penalties for breaches of the other conditions, and I also want to ensure that if he breaks these conditions regarding wages, the manufacturer will be liable to penalties.

The Minister spoke of new machinery being evolved and negotiations going on regarding a new method by which protected industries and, I presume, monopolistic industries will be prevented from paying unduly low wages. I know nothing about these negotiations. I do not know how far they have progressed. I do not know anybody who yet knows anything about them, but I imagine that from the general knowledge I have of the difficulties the Department has expressed itself as having met in such matters, it will be quite a long time before such a method is enforced. Whether that is so or not, if the new machinery that is going to be evolved provides some new method of fixing a legal minimum, when that machinery comes along a very small new section of a new Bill can repeal the new section which I propose. In the new Bill which the Minister envisages if it is found that this new section is unnecessary, then, of course, it may be repealed, but in the meantime it seems to me that there is every reason why the owners of such a factory should be required to pay a fair rate of wages and that that should be the legal minimum. I know there are some people— and I gather Senator Douglas is one and Senator Sir John Keane is another—and even many trade unionists, who are against the principle of a legal minimum, but I am one of those who favour a legal minimum. I do not want to encourage the fixing of wages by a series of strikes and locks-out, arriving in that way at something like an equilibrium. I want to establish, if possible, a legal minimum below which we shall not allow, certainly in the case of a monopoly, the monopolists to buy labour at a price which is only dictated by the physical necessities of the human family. I think it is absolutely essential, particularly in the circumstances that we are entering upon, an epoch, if one may say so, of State intervention in industry, that the workers in industries should have a definite measure of legal protection. That is the principle that I want to see incorporated in this Bill. If the Minister had made objection as to the form of the amendment, as to the necessity for re-drafting it in certain particulars, then I could have understood his argument, but as he opposed it on principle I fear I shall have to ask the House to divide on it.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
• Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
• Comyn, K.C., Michael.
• Cummins, William.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Johnson, Thomas.
• MacKean, James.
• O'Farrell, John T.
• Staines, Michael.

Níl

• Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
• Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Counihan, John C.
• Crosbie, George.
• Douglas, James G.
• Dowdall, J.C.
• Garahan, Hugh.
• Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
• Keane, Sir John.
• MacLoughlin, John.
• Moore, Colonel.
• Moran, James.
• O'Hanlon, M.F.
• O'Rourke, Brian.
• Robinson, Séumas.
• Toal, Thomas.
• Wilson, Richard.

Tellers—Tá: Senators Johnson and O'Farrell; Níl: Senators Sir John Keane and Seamus Robinson.

Amendment declared lost.

SECTION 12.

(1) Whenever the Minister grants a cement licence in respect of a particular area, the Minister may attach to such licence conditions in respect of all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) the manufacture of cement within such area by the holder of such licence at one specified factory only;

(b) the extent to which materials for the construction or adaptation by such holder of any factory within such area and the plant, equipment and apparatus of such factory shall be materials, plant, equipment and apparatus produced or manufactured in Saorstát Eireann.

Mr. Farren

I move amendment 4:—

Section 12, sub-section (1). Before paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

(b) the hours and conditions of labour and the minimum rates of wages at such factory or at any works or operations for the production or preparation of raw materials or articles used for the manufacture of cement at such factory.

This amendment is somewhat similar to the amendment moved a short time ago by Senator Johnson, but there is a fundamental difference between the two. What I am asking is that, in addition to all the other conditions the Minister will have power to impose under the section, he shall have power to impose a condition regarding the hours and conditions of labour and the minimum rates of wages to be paid in the factories set up and in procuring the raw material to be used in the factories. Speaking to the last amendment, the Minister said that he should not take power to fix rates of wages. My answer is that he should not then take power to impose all the other conditions laid down. I want the Minister to understand that the work in a cement factory is of a very dirty and dangerous nature. People engaged in the industry recognise that it is a very dirty and difficult job. What I am asking in the amendment is that, in addition to all the other conditions laid down, the Minister should at least take power, before granting a licence, to see that the human beings employed in the factory will be looked after. In fact the Minister is taking power to impose conditions with regard to quite a large number of things, but so far there is no provision with regard to the human beings to be employed. I think that, before the Minister grants a licence, he should take steps to ensure that the conditions for the labour employed in the factory will be satisfactory.

As I have said, there is a fundamental difference between this amendment and Senator Johnson's which asked that trade union conditions, similar to those obtaining in comparable employment elsewhere, should be imposed. My amendment is not nearly so far-reaching, but it is almost in line with trade board regulations. The Minister, in speaking to Senator Johnson's amendment, said that certain efforts were being made to bring into operation the machinery that exists with regard to the fixing of wages. Personally, I may say that I have heard nothing about that. If the Minister was referring to the efforts that are being made to revive some of the trade boards that used to deal with sweated industries, then I have heard something about that, but as to bringing into operation machinery that would insist on decent conditions being enforced in this industry, as I have already said I have heard nothing about that. All the conditions which the Minister may impose, and there is quite a litany of them, are laid down in this section. He should impose a condition for the protection of the human being engaged in the manufacture of cement. It is not unreasonable in an Act of Parliament which is giving a monopoly to provide that the Minister shall have power to insist that humane conditions shall obtain in the industry, if he finds that these are lacking. We are asking for nothing in this amendment but the minimum that people are entitled to get—the protection of the human being from exploitation when everything else that can possibly be thought of is being protected. That is the bare minimum to which the workers are entitled.

Mr. Dowdall

I am sorry to disagree with Senator Farren, but I think that this amendment goes much further than Senator Johnson's amendment went. I do not know whether Senator Farren intended that this amendment should deal not only with the hours of labour and the minimum rates of pay at the factory but that it should include "any works or operations for the production or preparation of raw materials." I can quite conceive a cement factory being situate conveniently close to a quarry, which may not belong to the cement company at all but from which they may derive some of their raw materials. This amendment would attempt to dictate the rate of wages payable to people altogether outside the employment or control of the cement factory. If carried, this amendment would really prevent a cement factory being carried on. Senator Farren dissents from that statement. I am certain that there is not a single cement factory in existence controlling all the operations required for ultimate production. The "preparation of raw materials or articles used for the manufacture of cement" would probably include jute or paper bags, which are associated with the preparations for manufacture. If the words following the reference to the rates of wages in this amendment are not struck out and if the amendment be carried, it will make impossible the carrying on of any cement factory, having regard to the penalty clauses in the Bill for the breaking of conditions.

Mr. Comyn

I agree with Senator Dowdall that this amendment goes much farther than the amendment proposed by Senator Johnson. I should like to ask Senator Farren if he has any regard at all for the unfortunate man who is going to conduct the factory. Would the Senator accept the conduct of a factory under the conditions imposed by this amendment?

Mr. Farren

Certainly. If I could not have humane conditions, I would not have the factory at all.

Mr. Comyn

We often hear of the courage that comes of want of knowledge. I apprehend that the Senator has no knowledge of the manufacture of cement. Therefore I am not surprised that he would undertake anything like that.

Mr. Farren

I would not chance as much as you would.

Mr. Comyn

No man who understands factory life or manufacture on a large scale would undertake work under the conditions which Senator Farren seeks to impose by this amendment. I am in favour of labour. I am as much in favour of the full employment of labour and of the payment of full wages to labour as Senator Farren is but I am not going to put either employees or workmen into leading-strings to satisfy Senator Farren or anybody else.

Mr. Johnson

Are you voting against the section?

Mr. Comyn

Does the Senator want the Minister to take upon himself the conduct of the entire work—to fix the hours and conditions of labour and the minimum rates of wages? I suppose there will be the various grades of labour and various hours of labour in these factories. In working a big business like that, it might be necessary to employ men for 10, 12, 15 or, perhaps, 23 hours of the day sometimes. I understand something about business. I am in favour of the labouring man but I do not want to have the labouring man exploited in this way. I suppose there will be various grades of labour and various classes of labourers.

Mr. Farren

You would want them chained to the machines.

Mr. Comyn

Are these men to come up to Senator Farren to know to what grades these conditions apply, or does the Senator think that because he has a pliable Minister he will get him to do this? The Bill refers to production—

Mr. Farren

There is nothing about a refresher in the amendment.

Mr. Comyn

It refers to the "production or preparation of raw materials". The raw materials of cement are three—lime, silica and alumina usually found in different places. Is the Minister to send round his inspectors to see if proper hours are being worked at the shale or if the men are quarrying for lime or for silica? That would be absolutely absurd. It would be as well for the Minister to take the whole work upon himself and that is a course I am not in favour of. These are the three main constituents of cement. There is another secret compound sometimes used. I think that Senator Dowdall is quite right when he says that the bag, whether hempen or paper, is a necessary element in the production of cement. I am against Senator Farren's amendment. It is grandmotherly to the last degree. I do not yield to Senator Farren or anybody else in my support of labouring man in relation either to wages or hours. But I think that the labouring man ought to be an independent man, entitled to work when he likes and to stay at home when he likes.

Mr. Johnson

After Senator Comyn's speech, I am quite sure he is going to vote against the incorporation of this section. The amendment proposes to give the Minister power to attach to licences certain conditions regarding hours and rates of wages, if he so desires.

Mr. Comyn

A Parliamentary expression.

Mr. Johnson

The section at present gives the Minister power to lay down conditions respecting the minimum quantity of cement which may be manufactured in any year. Is that grandmotherly or grandfatherly? The section gives the Minister power to make conditions regarding the nature and quality of cement manufactured and the mode of manufacture. What does the Minister know about the mode of manufacture? Is he going to arrange for the importation of a granduncle to teach him, so that he will be able to interfere in a "grandfatherly" way? When it comes to the question of packing, surely the Senator is not going to make the Minister interfere——

Mr. Comyn

It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back.

Mr. Johnson

We shall exchange our straw for one of those other straws and the burden will be no greater. All these conditions are laid down in Section 12, which the Senator is going to support. None of these is grandmotherly and none of them is going to interfere with the lives, liberties or dignity of the owners of the factory. The Minister may not decide to attach any of those conditions. He may think that there is no need to do so. The same may apply to the amendment by Senator Farren. If the Minister thinks that the factory is well-inclined as regards wages and conditions of labour, he may consider that there is no necessity to intervene. The amendment gives the Minister power to make certain conditions, as the section gives him power to make those other conditions. I am surprised at Senator Comyn pretending to have all the sympathy with Labour that people antagonistic to Labour ever professed to have. These people are always in favour of the dignity of man, the independence of the workman and non-interference with him by law. Let him, they say, have full liberty to sell his life and his labour at the lowest price he will be compelled to accept.

Mr. Comyn

I am for the highest price.

Mr. Johnson

If there happen to be ten sellers and one buyer and the buyer wants a commodity which every one of the sellers possesses, what is going to be the effect? The Senator will, no doubt, say that it is reasonable and proper that the individual who had the article to sell should get the highest price—that he should be free to take whatever price he wished. But if he happened to have two or three children looking for food, he might be forced to say: "I shall take 5/- per week less than my neighbour, who has only one child to keep." That is the liberty for which Senator Comyn is pleading. Senator Farren seeks in this amendment to give the Minister power to impose certain conditions, if he thinks these conditions should be imposed. The amendment which has been defeated was much more mandatory than that.

I am surprised that Senator Dowdall should speak as he has done. He ought to know that it is customary to impose conditions respecting sub-contractors and sub-contracts. If a fair wages clause is put into a contract, that does not allow the contractor to sub-let his contract to somebody who is not bound by these conditions. The Senator is arguing against that principle which applies so often in the case of sub-contractors when he makes the case he does regarding operations that are outside the direct control of the factory. There can be no reasonable opposition to the amendment on those grounds. The Seanad has given a Second Reading to a Bill which grants monopoly powers to certain people and if it is not going to make any condition regarding the rates of pay and hours of labour legally applicable to these monopolistic manufacturers, we must realise that the Seanad is definitely and deliberately opposed to legal protection for the workmen. Again I remind the House that that state of mind is an invitation to continuous friction—to fighting and squabbling, to strikes and locks-out until something like equilibrium, simply based upon the result of a struggle, is reached. Some of us hoped that we might be moving away from that state of affairs industrially but the Seanad seems to be of a different mind. Senators seem to be in favour of going back to a state of struggle and strife in industry, so associating themselves with what is, I suppose, without any exaggeration, the fundamental doctrine of the class struggle which is so beloved of the Bolsheviks.

Mr. Dowdall

I am not really opposed to the principle of this Bill, but I consider that the amendment as framed would make the carrying on of business impossible. While it is possibly advisable to give power to the Minister to regulate hours, conditions of labour and minimum wages, I think it is absolutely impossible to do that if you include the words "or at any works or operations for the production or preparation of raw materials or articles used for the manufacture of cement at such factory." It is quite possible—although it will be more probable than possible—that from time to time it may be necessary to import cargoes and, as there are penalty clauses in the Bill, if manufacturers infringe on certain conditions of a contract and if it is proved their licences will be taken away, or they will incur a penalty of £50. Is it reasonable to include the words I referred to in the amendment? I consider it is unreasonable and that to do so would make the carrying on of a factory impossible.

Mr. Douglas

Senator Johnson was quite correct when he stated that the remarks I made on a previous amendment also applied, as a general principle, to this one. I would like to emphasise further, that if you accept a position of responsibility for any factory, or for any large business, or even for a small business, the most you can be expected to do is to control that which you have power to control. If you are to investigate the conditions under which things you buy from other people are made you arrive at a position which is impossible. It means either evading or honouring it in the breach or else chaos. I am not prepared to say that I am never in favour of the State fixing conditions of work. I think there are circumstances in which the State might, quite properly, fix minimum hours and minimum conditions of work. I am not at all certain that I would vote against an amendment which simply provided that the Minister might include in the conditions minimum hours and minimum conditions of work. With regard to minimum wages, I am not prepared to say that I would never agree to that either. At present minimum wages are fixed by trade boards after discussion between representatives of the workers and representatives of the employers, and when an order is made it has legislative effect, practically. I hold that is a better way, the State fixing minimum wages, than the Minister putting in a condition that he should fix minimum wages. The time may come when that will be the only way to deal with it, but when there is other machinery, which involves consultation between the persons interested, with power to fix minimum wages, to introduce the Minister is a form of socialism that I am not prepared to agree to, when there is any other way out of the difficulty.

Mr. Comyn

Do not the Factory Acts apply to this question?

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Mr. Comyn

Will these Acts not regulate hours?

Mr. Farren

No.

Mr. O'Farrell

The main opposition to the amendment is on the ground that it is impracticable, because of the outside operations that would be brought in. I would like to know from the proposer and from Senator Dowdall if he would be prepared to support it if it read "hours and conditions of labour and rates of wages at such factory." I think that would cover the greater portion of labour directly associated with the factory. Senator Comyn made tremendous play on the extent to which an amendment of this kind would seek to tie up the manufacturers. He wants them to be free lances. If the Senator had only read Section 12 he would see that the Minister may impose no less than 19 separate conditions. He may lay down the maximum quantity of cement which may be manufactured, the minimum quantity, the mode of manufacture, the packing, the employment at such factory of nationals of Saorstát Eireann, and the extent to which raw materials may be bought at home. Surely each and every one of these is a restriction on manufacturers. They hamper and interfere with what the Senator would call the rights of the private individual. All these are embodied in the amendment. The Senator said that there were three commodities essential to the manufacture of cement but he omitted labour.

Mr. Comyn

I do not think labour goes into cement.

Mr. O'Farrell

Without labour the cement would not exist.

Mr. Comyn

There is cement without labour.

Mr. O'Farrell

If it was an inanimate commodity the Senator would agree that the Minister should interfere, but, if there are human beings in question, the Senator evidently thinks it quite fair that they should be exploited. Here we are setting up a monopoly. I am sorry to say that even if this amendment were adopted it does not mean very much, because it is merely permissive. It says that the Minister may "attach to such licence conditions", of which this shall be one. If in his opinion it entails fixing the hours and rates of wages away from the factory, in such a place as a quarry, he need not fix them. If he desires he can attach a condition that there shall be an eight-hour day, and that any hours worked beyond that shall be overtime and be paid separately. He could attach a condition that men should not be asked to work on Sundays without extra payment or, that if asked to work over the usual hours special rates should be paid. There might be a condition that there would be a day's holiday during the week or holidays during the year. There are matters like that, of vital importance, which the Minister could lay down without going into any complicated details. I suggest that there is nothing in the amendment which interferes with the successful operation of a factory, or which introduces any new principle not already incorporated in Section 12.

Mr. Comyn

The last speaker suggested that I had not read Section 12. I assure him that I read it with the conditions attached. I observe that the Minister has specified a number of conditions, but that he has very wisely refrained from interfering in the relations as to the hours of labour and rates of pay between the employers and the workmen. He has very wisely left that to the trades unions and the employers concerned. I repeat that if this amendment became of general application, authorising a Minister to interfere in the conduct of business, to the extent of regulating the hours and conditions of labour, and the minimum rates of wages in a factory, it would be quite impossible for any man to carry on business, at his own risk, and at his own expense, and in effect, the Minister would really become an employer in every industry in the country. Senator O'Farrell, who always makes a good case for any side he happens to be briefed, when he says that this does not involve any new principle makes a statement that I have to challenge. I think it does involve a new principle. It involves bringing in the State as a party in every conceivable labour dispute.

Mr. Foran

That is their job.

Mr. Comyn

That might be their job at some future time, when we have settled a good many more pressing matters. The most pressing matter at the present time is to get employment for the 50,000 or 60,000 people who have no employment.

Mr. Farren

The Senator is shedding tears for them.

Mr. Comyn

I work as much as Senator Farren. I take as much interest in them as he does——

Mr. Farren

That is admitted.

Mr. Comyn

These are the reasons why I think this amendment introduces a new principle. I will contest that principle as long as I am in this House. Let it be finished with now, so that we will have no more of it in this House while I am here.

Mr. Foran

I think Senator Comyn is possibly a little too honest about the relation between workers in industry and the duty of the State as between employers and workers. The Senator talked about a new principle. This is not a new principle. The State has been interfering between employers and workers for a great number of years, in fact, since the workers secured emancipation. The State felt that it was its duty to protect the workers. We have trade boards, labour exchanges, and frequent interference, and properly so, by the Ministry of Labour in industrial disputes. It may be new to Senator Comyn, because he talked about a new principle as if it was an outrage to safeguard the interests of workers in industry. It is undoubtedly in his view the duty of the State to safeguard the interests of capitalists and employers generally. The Senator is also in favour of labour. Yes, labour for the other fellow. That is the kind of sympathy the Senator has for the workers. Coming to the amendment, employers or capitalists, when embarking on any enterprise want to know, first of all, what the labour conditions are. They have to be satisfied about that. From what authority are they able to get assurances? From the Ministry of Labour, which supplies information of that kind. The manufacturers then go ahead. There is nothing in the Bill, as it stands, to prevent any investor ascertaining what the labour conditions are going to be. It may be that this administration has in mind something like what the former administration had, as regards wages.

When a point somewhat similar to the present point was raised in connection with the Shannon scheme we were told that the rates of wages and the conditions would be ideal. We were told that there would be no question about that. "Trust the Minister," we were told and, unfortunately, we did, and the result of it was that the workers were offered 29/- a week when the farm labourer was getting something over 34/-. We are not trusting any Ministry any more. We want to make an effort that, in whatever industries are set up, the interests of the workers will be protected by legislation. They have as much right to that protection as any capitalist or financier who may come in here to exploit them. We want to ensure that conditions in these factories, if they do come, will be such as will provide a Christian standard of living for the people employed in them. The State is the proper authority to lay that down and it should not be left to the unorganised and unprotected worker and the employer who is in a position to exploit him. We want to ensure that no citizens in this State will be unduly exploited and hence this very modest amendment— grandmotherly, I will grant you——

Mr. Comyn

Step-motherly.

Mr. Foran

I could call it by another name, but it would not be polite in this House. I know something about this cement industry. I have interviewed capitalists on the Portland cement question and the one thing they wanted satisfaction on before starting the factory, they assured me, was labour conditions, hours and wages, as well as continuity to safeguard them from irregular, spasmodic strikes. If the Minister has power to lay down a regular rate of wages there would be more inducement for these people to come in knowing in advance what the conditions are likely to be.

Mr. Douglas

Would the Labour Party agree to accept the Minister's standard with the guarantee that somebody coming in would accept it for a considerable time? I do not believe it for a moment.

Mr. S. Robinson

If this sub-section made it mandatory on the Minister, I could understand a good deal of the opposition, but apparently it is one of those things which he may do.

I can visualise a cement factory putting in for a contract and being able to get it although the conditions under which their own workmen are employed are perfect and the wages good but where the raw material is being got by means of sweated labour. I could see that a complaint could be sent in to the Minister, and I do not quite understand why he should not have power to make regulations governing those conditions.

Mr. Farren

It appears to me that there has been a good deal of misconception with regard to this particular amendment. This amendment does not say that the Minister shall fix rates of wages in the factory. This amendment seeks to provide the Minister with power to attach conditions to a licence or, when a licence is granted, to say to the people concerned: "We consider that you are not doing justice by the people who are engaged in this factory or in the procuring of the raw material and we are entitled to impose what we consider are humane conditions of employment." Senator Comyn spoke about the dignity of the working man and said that he did not want to make little of him. It appeared to me that, he was in a most extraordinary position. The only dignity he would confer on the working man, according to his statement to-day, is the dignity of being exploited and starved. The State is not entitled to protect him. The State is, of course, entitled to protect every other person, to protect the capitalist who comes in here to put money into a factory and to see that he can charge a certain price for cement. The State is entitled to insist, notwithstanding what Senator Dowdall said about hempen and paper bags, on the manner in which this cement is to be packed and, under the Bill, the Minister has power to say to the people in the factory: "You cannot pack this in brown paper; you must pack it in hempen bags." The Minister has power to compel the people who get licences to do anything he likes, but he has not power to do the one thing we ask he should have power to do—to protect human beings from being exploited. My amendment does not say that the Minister must insist. It says that the Minister may impose conditions when granting a licence or, when a licence is granted, to impose conditions if he thinks the prevailing conditions are not satisfactory. Was there ever anything more reasonable than that? I put it to the House that, in view of all the circumstances, in view of all the power that is being granted to the Minister to cover everything—with regard to the supply of capital, what nationals shall be employed in the factory, where and when the materials will be got, the nature of the materials and the extent to which they may be got from any other place—he should have power to protect the unfortunate human being. Senator Comyn talked about the Factory Acts being in existence—

Mr. Comyn

Acts. There are several of them—thousands of them.

Mr. Farren

What protection does the Factory Act give from sweated conditions of employment? I ask Senator Comyn to tell the House that. I think I know as much about those Acts as he does.

Mr. Comyn

Deal with the logic of the case and do not mind Senator Comyn.

Mr. Farren

I know as much about the conditions of the Factory Acts as he does and I ask him to produce a Factory Act for me that imposes any conditions with regard to the rates of wages paid in the factory.

Mr. Comyn

None.

Mr. Farren

Yet they are protected by the Factory Act.

Mr. Comyn

As regards hours and conditions of labour.

Mr. Farren

Little girls and females will not be worked more than 80 hours a week!

Mr. Comyn

Females are not employed in cement factories.

Cathaoirleach

I cannot allow all these interruptions.

Mr. Farren

Senator Comyn made the first speech and, when he made that first speech, I am afraid he did not understand what was contained in this Section 12. In his second attempt, he tried to cover up the mistakes he made in his first speech but he failed lamentably. He made the case much worse than it was on the first occasion. I know the views of Senator Dowdall and I know what he has done in the matter of employment and I pay him this tribute, that I believe that he always stood for giving fair play to the people employed in any concern he was associated with. I pay him that compliment because I believe he deserves it, but I think that Senator Dowdall has not read the amendment as it is intended to be read. The amendment, as I intended, so far as the procuring of the raw material is concerned, means this: Supposing people get a licence for the erection of a cement factory and that, in the immediate neighbourhood, there is plenty of raw material available, and if the people who are engaged in the procuring of this raw material are not being paid the rates of wages that they ought to be paid and that prevail in similar employment, quarrying, for example, the Minister will have power to say "We think these people are entitled to be paid something like a reasonable wage." Surely, that is not asking too much. That is all the amendment asks and, with regard to the procurement of the materials that may be required, this State cannot legislate to govern employment outside the State. No Minister would be foolish enough to impose impossible conditions and I give the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Acting Minister credit for sufficient common sense not to impose such conditions. But all I ask is that, if people are not being paid rates which the Department thinks are reasonable rates, the Minister will have power to attach conditions to the licence compelling the payment of these reasonable rates of wages. Could anything be more reasonable than that?

That is simply what my amendment asks, and it is far different in principle from Senator Johnson's. It does not ask for State interference—that the State should come in and set up rates of wages in this or in any other factory but, mark you, the State has agreed to the setting up of wages through the instrumentality of the trades boards. There is not much difference in principle between that system and what I am asking because it only means that the Minister, if certain conditions which he thinks should prevail are not prevailing, should have power to insist on them. It is simply protection for the human being. As I have said, every other conceivable matter is protected, and all I am asking is that the Minister should have power to insist on fair play for the human being. In conclusion, I want to refer to one matter —and I nearly forgot it. Senator Comyn says that it is a bad principle for the State to interfere with regard to the fixing of wages and the taking away of people's livelihoods. I have before me the National Health Insurance Bill under which the State proposes to take away employment from a lot of people.

Mr. Comyn

We opposed that, did we not?

Mr. Farren

I have here also the Cork Tramway Employees (Compensation) Bill, and I hope to hear Senator Comyn very eloquent when this Bill comes along. The employment of these people has been taken away by the State and the State is not giving them compensation. I hope to hear his views when it comes along. There is a more important Bill still coming before the House—it is termed the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill. In this Bill, the Government is asking for power to impose conditions on people who are not, mark you, employed by them but employed by other people. The State is asking for power in that Bill to say to local authorities all over the country: "The wages paid to your employees are too high and you must reduce them." Of course, you will give the State power to reduce wages but you will not give power to insist on the giving of decent conditions. No, Senator Comyn, typically lawyerlike, is absolutely adamant, and I suppose he would not attempt to give the State power to insist that the unfortunate working man should get a decent wage. No, but he will vote to give the State power to take away a decent wage from the working man.

Mr. Comyn

No, I would not.

Mr. Farren

We will prove that when this Bill comes along. The Senator cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he will not allow the State to insist that the unfortunate underdog must be protected from exploitation by every foreign capitalist who comes into the country and, at the same time, say that he will give the State power to take from the workers of the State what they are entitled to receive. We must be somewhat consistent about these things. There is no use in Senator Comyn prating about the dignity of the working man and professing sympathy for him and telling me that he talked more about him than I did. I will agree that he did. He may have talked more about him——

Mr. Comyn

And worked and paid them more than you did.

Mr. Farren

—but talk is cheap.

Mr. Comyn

I always gave the highest wages in my county, and never had a quarrel with a labouring man yet.

Cathaoirleach

That makes six speeches, Senator.

Mr. Farren

I do not think there is any more to be said. I hope the House will accept the amendment because I believe that the principle is one worthy of insertion in the Bill.

Mr. Derrig

I think that, from my point of view, the last amendment which was defeated would have been preferable to this because the fair wages clause has occasionally been inserted in legislation but not perhaps in quite analogous conditions. I think that in the case of the beet sugar subsidy, and, at any rate, in the case of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act, the Seanad inserted the fair wages clause. I do not know whether it was in the Dáil or in the Seanad that the fair wages clause was inserted in the Beet Act, but the last amendment as I have said would have been preferable from my point of view because, as Senator Comyn has pointed out, the present amendment is not a fair wages clause simply. It provides that the Minister may—and I presume "may" in this case means "shall"—interfere in the working of the industry to some extent. It seems to me that if the present amendment were carried, it would mean that the Minister might at various times and on various occasions be brought into the actual working of the factory, and might be called upon to determine actual matters of administration as between the factory and employees. As I have already explained to the Seanad, the attitude of our Department is that this matter can be best settled by introducing special legislation, if the existing Trades Board legislation is not sufficient, to deal with the whole question of wages and conditions of employment in protected industries generally. Personally, I have a good deal of sympathy with the attitude expressed by Senators Farren and Johnson, but I should like to say that there is some difference between what has been done already and what is now proposed.

We are going much further here than a fair wages clause. Even as regards the fair wages clause itself, take the case of the Road Transport Act. The provision put into the Road Transport Act was that the wages and the conditions should be reasonable and the onus was not put on the Minister, as far as I understand, under the Road Transport Act, to see that the conditions were reasonable. The onus was put on the employees to come to the Minister or to an arbitrator, to come into a conference and to show that they were not in fact reasonable in all the circumstances. That is the position under the Road Transport Act. Under the Housing Act it is well known that in all employment under public bodies, the trade union level of wages, in fact, is paid, and I do not think the State is going any further than to recognise the existing position. We did not think that it should pertain to rural areas where people would be working for themselves, but as regards employment under urban or municipal councils I think there is no doubt whatever that in fact trade union rates of wages have been paid. My feeling about the present amendment is that, in fact, trade union wages will be paid in this industry as in every other industry, and, if they are not, the trades union, under the machinery that will be set up, will be able to deal with the situation.

Mr. Farren

I should like to ask the Minister if he would be prepared to consider an amendment on Report which might be agreed upon between the Department and ourselves, an amendment which will ensure that a fair wages clause would be inserted in this Bill?

Mr. Derrig

If the House is agreeable I have no objection.

Mr. Farren

In view of the statement the Minister has made I shall not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 13.

If any person who is the holder of a cement manufacture licence fails, neglects, or refuses to observe or comply with any of the conditions attached to such licence, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and in the case of a continuing offence a further fine not exceeding fifty pounds for every day during which the offence is continued.

Mr. Douglas

I move amendment No. 5:—

Section 13. After the words "licence" in line 3 to insert the words "except where such failure 13 due to circumstances over which he had no control.

I put down this amendment principally for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Minister to the fact that while the penalties provided under Section 13 might be perfectly reasonable for breaches of the licence in circumstances over which the licensee had control, there are certain conditions under Section 12 which the licensee may not be able to control. For instance, take the extent to which the capital of the company has to be held by nationals of the Saorstát. If, for the sake of argument, the Minister fixes 50 per cent. as the amount which is to be held by nationals of the Saorstát, the company is started and 50 per cent. of the capital is held by shareholders who are nationals of An Saorstát. If afterwards some of these persons die and the executor is not a national, that company will cease to function or be liable to a fine of £50 per day. That is one of the things which would not be under the control of the firm concerned and I want to have the words proposed in the amendment inserted in the section so as to safeguard the licensee from a fine of £50 per day or, alternatively, from stopping his work, which, of course, is what he would do if he became aware of the circumstances. Some of these things are dealt with in the Control of Manufactures Act and safeguards were put into that Act, but this Bill specifically excludes the Control of Manufactures Act and, therefore, there would be no safeguards under this Bill. The difficulty would be met, I suggest, if we provide that a person should not be fined for a breach of the conditions if he were able to prove that he had no actual control over the circumstances which led to such a breach. That is the reason I propose the amendment.

Mr. Derrig

I imagine that if the court is satisfied that the evidence clearly shows that the breach of the conditions was due to circumstances over which the licensee had no control, the court will take that into consideration. I cannot say what the legal implication of the matter may be, but I can promise the Senator to look into the matter. If the legal advisers of the Department think that such an amendment is necessary I would be prepared to introduce a similar amendment on the Report Stage. I feel at the moment, however, that the fact that the court will have the ultimate decision in the matter and will be able to go into all the circumstances of the case is in itself a sufficient safeguard.

Mr. Douglas

I am quite agreeable to defer the amendment to the Report Stage, but I should like to point out to the Minister that while what he has stated is probably correct as far as the fine is concerned, a man may still be convicted of a technical breach of the Act. He may be only fined 1/-, but he must be convicted. If the court considers that he had no control over the circumstances the court may only inflict a nominal fine, but then we come to the next section under which the licence may be withdrawn because the licensee has been technically convicted. I do not suggest that the Minister would withdraw the licence in such circumstances, but a man by the very fact that he has been convicted will be at the mercy of the Minister from that time onwards, and may have his licence withdrawn, I am not personally interested in this matter, but I put down the amendment because I thought this a necessary safeguard.

Amendment deferred to Report Stage.

Sections 13 to 38 inclusive and the Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill ordered to be reported to the House. Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 5th July.