I move:
That, in the absence of official particulars, the Seanad views with concern, the reported intention of the Government to grant to one firm the monopoly of manufacturing motor tyres in Saorstát Eireann.
It will be within the recollection of the House that when apprehension has been voiced at the probable effect of legislation which gave very wide powers to Ministers, and when it was said, by some of us, that power was passing away from Parliament into the hands of the Executive, not only the present Ministers but their predecessors have always said "You have got the power of motion; you have Parliament sitting from time to time and you can ask to raise these matters specifically when you think there is danger." I am taking that action now because I feel that in a recent happening there is, perhaps I cannot say danger, but very grave grounds for apprehension and there is very great uneasiness in the public mind, uneasiness which cannot find its full expression owing to the limited facilities for publicity that now exist. We know what we do know from fragments that have appeared in the public Press.
It appears that it is the intention of the Government to grant to one firm —it is immaterial how it is formed—the right to manufacture motor tyres and other rubber goods in the country. I would suggest that the bulk of the manufacture will be motor tyres and it is with motor tyres that this motion is mainly concerned. When I raised the question incidentally, on the Control of Manufactures Bill, which has just passed, the Minister said that it was to avoid the circumstances to which I am now referring, that Part III or Part IV of the Bill was passed. I can only ask why the matter could not have been kept over until the Control of Manufactures Bill was law because under the provisions of that Bill this present concession could be given with safeguards. It would have been necessary to come to Parliament, state your case, and get a resolution passed. My recollection is not quite clear as to whether it would be necessary to have it passed in the Dáil only or in both Houses. As it is, the Minister has given the concession indirectly and I suggest he is giving, in effect, a monopoly because he is placing a quota on imports pending the establishment by this firm, the Dunlop Rubber Company, of a factory in Cork. As soon as these works are in being and in production, there will be an effective prohibition of imports and that firm will have, I suggest, a virtual monopoly.
On general grounds, I suggest, action of that kind is most dangerous. It has been urged before that, in principle, the Government should not be given power to enter into contracts with firms and to give these firms a very distinctive and privileged position over other manufacturers. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that where that has been done in other countries grave scandals, sooner or later, emerged and, as I said before, this country possesses its own share of original sin. I think it is the duty of the Legislature to take protective steps so as to avoid any possibility of temptation of that kind being placed in the way of Ministers or officials. I am not suggesting that in this case or in any case in the past, the action taken has not been perfectly free from corruption, but anybody with any knowledge of human nature must know that there is very grave danger in action of this kind. I would suggest to the House to adopt the view that it is most undesirable in the public interest that monopolies of this kind should be given without investigation or without any kind of public inquiry. The previous Government, I think, recognised that when they established the Tariff Commission, a body of independent persons, to investigate similar matters, because tariffed industries are, in effect, in the same position as monopolies. The previous Government set up a body of independent persons to carry out investigations and allowed all interested parties to appear before it. The evidence was taken in public.
There was a report, and in that report a case had to be made. Questions had to be dealt with under certain headings. That afforded very substantial safeguards. In this case we know nothing. We have no information as to the effect on employment. We do not know how many people are likely to be employed. We have no knowledge as to how many people are likely to be thrown out of employment. We know nothing whatever of the hardships or injustices that may follow from this Act. I know that there are two firms registered in this country for the purpose of distributing motor tyres not of Dunlop manufacture. These people paid stamp duty and acted fully within the law and, certainly, with an assurance that they would be allowed to trade freely. No doubt they are under contract with regard to the premises they have acquired. I have no doubt that they have lorries and other property. If this concession is going to work as expected, these people are going to be ruined. Does the Minister intend that any compensation should be given them? Are they going to be allowed, even as an act of grace, to make their case? I think that it is most unjust that consequences of that kind should be even contemplated. Where there is a possibility of wrongful acquisition, or even interference with the amenities of citizens in certain circumstances, in connection with local government, an inspector comes down and holds an inquiry. Everybody is heard and a report is made, following the inquiry. Nothing of this kind is being done in this case. Out of the blue comes a series of orders which, in effect, gives one firm a monopoly and, so far as we can see, may lead to the driving out of business and the substantial ruin of certain persons. I do not care how many of these persons there may be. If there are only half a dozen it is still a grave and gross injustice. The Minister should tell the House what capital outlay is likely to take place as a result of this concession. My information is— I have no technical knowledge and I give the information for what it is worth—that the requirements of this country do not justify an economic plant, that the approximate consumption of motor tyres in this country is 100,000 a year or, roughly, 300 per working day. That is not an economic output. If it is not economic, presumably the Company is not going to work at a loss. Whatever is not economic will be made up by increase in price or some deterioration in quality. Generally, we have a right to know what safeguards the Minister has imposed to secure that the public will not now or in the future pay any more for tyres of present quality. Moreover, we are entitled to know what steps the Minister has taken to secure that the present quality shall be maintained. Speaking without knowledge of motor tyre manufacture, I do not see that the Minister can ensure that merely by some declaration or written contract. The only possible way the Minister could ensure the maintenance of quality would be to get the firm to undertake that they would submit their tyres to the same running tests to which tyres are subjected at present. We know that there are what, I think, are called "bench tests." We see advertisements of a circular machine on which the tyres run round for so many hours at so many thousand revolutions per hour. Is the Minister taking steps to secure that these identical tests will be carried out in the factory in Cork and that there will be a representative of the Government there at all times to secure that the public are protected? That this is a most undesirable method of doing business I grant, but if these monopolies are created, these are the consequences that must flow if the public are to be protected. I ask the Minister whether or not he is going to insist that a representative of the Government will be present at the factory to protect the consumer. Can the Minister tell us whether we are, under this arrangement, going to have the same range of quality as at present, because that firm makes three qualities of tyres of the same size. Shall we have the same range of quality in the future that we have had in the past? I also ask the Minister to give us an estimate of what the loss of revenue will be. I am informed that the revenue derived from the duty on tyres at present is in the region of £100,000 or £150,000 a year. Has that been taken into consideration in reviewing the economics of this problem? We have a right to know, on the one side, how many men are to be brought into employment and, on the other side, how many men are going to be thrown out of employment. With regard to those likely to be displaced, I should say that some of them are earning from £6 to £7 per week, and that they contribute substantial amounts to the revenue in the shape of income tax and other charges.
Generally, I ask the House to take a very serious view of this whole transaction. It is most undesirable that we should be suddenly told that so-and-so has got a monopoly. Nothing is said; all is done in the dark, and we wake up to find that we are in the hands of a single firm—I do not care how eminent. Competition is abolished. The only alternative is the competition that nationals may provide, and no national will engage in capital outlay and instal machinery to go into competition with a firm of this kind. The public are very concerned about this matter, and the Government are lucky that Press facilities are so limited at present. It is for the Minister to make a full and frank statement to the House as to the transaction and as to the details arranged between the Government and this company. He should also state what steps the Government are taking to protect the consumer. Not merely should we have such a statement now, but that statement should be amplified by some white paper or document setting out in detail what has been done.
