I move:
That Seanad Eireann hereby approves of Reserved Commodity (Sewing Cotton) Order, 1935, made on the 2nd day of July, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Manufactures Act, 1934 (No. 36 of 1934).
Public Business. - Reserved Commodity (Sewing Cotton) Order, 1935.—Motion of Approval.
I second.
As members of the Seanad are aware, the effect of a Reserved Commodity Order in relation to any commodity is to create a position that any person proposing to manufacture that commodity in the Saorstát must receive a licence, to which may be attached a number of conditions which are set out in Section 23 of the Control of Manufactures Act, 1934. A Reserved Commodity Order cannot become effective until it has been approved of by resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. One of the reasons why that power of making commodities reserved and, consequently, capable of being manufactured only under licence, was that the Executive Council desired to secure that certain industries would be established in the western part of the country. There was another reason which was mentioned at the time the Bill was going through and which related to the possibility of getting manufacturing processes done here only if the whole of the market could be secured for the one concern. That, however, does not arise in this case.
The reason why it was decided to make sewing cotton a reserved commodity was to ensure that power would be exercisable to secure the establishment of the industry in the western part of the country, it being deemed an industry suitable for establishment in the West, and because it was not possible to arrange for any firm to engage in the establishment of this industry in the West unless they could be secured against competition from other firms which might establish themselves subsequently in the centre of the market, in Dublin or in Cork. The decision was made following an arrangement with a company which has been formed for the purpose of establishing a factory at Westport —a company called the Irish Sewing Cotton Company. That company is associated with a British company called the British Threadmills Company, Ltd., of Leicester, and 50 per cent of the capital in the Irish company is held by that British company and 50 per cent. by business people in Westport and vicinity.
The company has a capital of £20,000, which is considered adequate to finance its earlier activities, but it will be necessary to increase that capital considerably before the full degree of manufacture, which it is proposed to undertake at Westport, can be undertaken. It is anticipated that the employment to be given there, when the full process of manufacture has been undertaken, will be from 150 to 200 hands. A large proportion of these workers will be female workers. It is apparently the practice in this industry in all countries to employ female labour in many of the processes and the firm at Westport arranged to send a number of such workers from Westport to Leicester to be trained. These workers have been trained at Leicester and are now back at Westport training other local workers in the various processes involved in the industry.
The arrangement concerning price which has been made with the company is that the thread produced at Westport will, quality for quality, be sold at a price not exceeding the price at which similar thread is sold in Great Britain by the firms associated in the British cotton thread combine. It is proposed to attach the usual conditions to the licence in regard to the employment of nationals, the utilisation of Irish materials, and so forth. Under Section 25 of the Control of Manufactures Act, the company will be required to pay such wages to its employees as would be paid if the business were carried on under a contract between the Minister and the holder of a licence containing a fair wages clause similar to that, for the time being, contained in contracts made by Ministers and Government departments. There is, at the present time, an import duty of 40 per cent. on imported cotton thread. Until recently, however, licences were being issued freely for the importation of cotton thread. In fact, as Senators may be aware, licences were not altogether necessary because the definition of thread in the original Resolution imposing that duty was successfully evaded by certain people and a large quantity of thread came in without payment of duty and without the necessity for getting licences. The issue of licences, however, was suspended a few weeks ago because the Department of Industry and Commerce had reason to believe that there were adequate stocks of thread in the country to supply all reasonable requirements. The manufacture of cotton thread will be done at Westport in all stages from the yarn up. It is not proposed to spin yarn from raw cotton at Westport. That process, apparently, is not done in a thread factory ordinarily, and, in any event, it appears that the total amount of yarn required in the country would be just sufficient to keep one yarn spinning company going. Consequently, we would be inclined to discourage this firm from undertaking yarn spinning in the hope that, later on, we may be able to get a firm to undertake yarn spinning in the country.
The company has barely started. At the present time, it is not yet producing any thread for sale, and only a few of the final processes of manufacture have been undertaken; but it is anticipated that, within the course of 12 months, the extension of the industry to cover all processes of manufacture will be completed. With regard to the provisions of the Control of Manufactures Act, public notice was given of the intention to make sewing cotton a reserved commodity and objections were invited from all parties interested. A majority of the objections received, however, were not relevant to the Order, but were mainly objections from firms and persons engaged as agents for the importation of cotton thread and were directed more against the idea of manufacturing cotton thread at all in the country than against making cotton thread a reserved commodity. There was one British firm, however, that indicated their willingness to undertake the manufacture of cotton thread in the country, and there was one objection, which was perfectly relevant and orderly, from a firm in Dublin, called The Irish Linen Manufacturing Company, which said that the machinery they had installed for the purpose of manufacturing linen thread was suitable for certain processes in the manufacture of cotton thread, and that they proposed to do so. As I have said, our main reason for making this a reserved commodity was to ensure that the industry would be established in the West; and it would be contrary to the intention of the Government to permit a firm in Dublin to undertake the same industry. In any event, that firm is not yet undertaking all the processes of the manufacture of linen thread which it was formed to undertake. I do not think, however, that they are pressing their objection. At any rate, having considered that objection, which was relevant, and all the other objections, the Executive Council felt that there was no reason why they should not proceed with their intention to make the manufacture of sewing cotton a reserved commodity. Sewing cotton is the first commodity which has been made a reserved commodity under the Control of Manufactures Act, and the reason for making it a reserved commodity, is, not because we consider it necessary to do so in order to have the commodity manufactured here—we could have had it manufactured here without making a Reserved Commodity Order—but that we felt it desirable to create a position in which this industry would be located in one or other of the western counties. That was the reason why the decision to make sewing cotton a reserved commodity was arrived at. In view of the arrangements made with the firm in question—a firm which has had considerable experience of the industry and which is, apparently, going in a proper way about the establishment of this industry, and which has entered into an undertaking to sell that thread, ex factory, at Westport at the same price as obtains ex factory in Great Britain.
The Minister mentioned the company at Leicester. I wonder would he give us an idea of the comparison between the two factories.
This is a Company which is independent of the British Thread combine. It has a capital of £425,000, and from inquiries made it was clear that it had a very favourable standing in trade circles in Great Britain and that it manufactured a very good quality of thread, the sales of which were increasing and which were being sold in Great Britain somewhat below the combine prices.
I should like to ask the Minister whether or not he is aware that this particular firm produces certain classes of cotton that are required in the industry. I am informed that, in certain industries, there are certain classes of machines for a particular type of thread that has been found most beneficial for use in the trade in this particular industry. I should like to know whether the Minister is aware that this particular firm produces this particular class of cotton thread, and, if not, will he take steps to see that licences will be issued to the manufacturers concerned so that they can get their requirements of raw material to enable them to keep their industries going?
Of course, it is proposed to manufacture all classes of thread at Westport and to manufacture a full range of colours in due course. At the present time, however, the dyeing plant has not been installed, and I imagine that that will be the last stage of manufacture to be undertaken. Until they are able to undertake that, however, threads of such colours as they do not make will be imported free of duty when the position of stocks already in the country has been regulated. At the present time, there are considerable stocks in the country and it is not necessary to import further stocks, but, ordinarily, it is the intention to allow these articles to be imported until the factory can produce them.
I think that the Minister ought to make sure that this firm at Westport can produce the particular sort of thread which I have in mind. I understand that there is a certain technical term in connection with this process, which is known as "left twist." I understand that a certain machine, the revolutions of which are up to 2,000, was designed to deal with this particular process, and that this type of thread is being adapted to suit such types of machine.
Is it manufactured in Ireland?
Oh, no. There are manufacturers in Ireland who use this particular type of thread.
The Deputy can be certain that the company, in Westport will endeavour to supply that type of thread, because the big market is the industrial market for thread, and not the domestic market.
Yes, but if this particular firm is not able to produce that will the industrialist here get a licence?
Oh, certainly.
I should like to call the Minister's attention to the fact that there is a special type of high-class machine on the market now and that the thread has to be specially fitted for it. As a matter of fact, there is only one firm in Great Britain undertaking this process, and they supply it to the makers of the machine. I know of one firm which, if they do not get a licence to import the thread, will have to scrap their machine, which costs quite a lot.
On this occasion I do not wish to speak as a politician but as a business man and if I venture to criticise the Order making sewing cotton a reserved commodity I hope I will not be accused of sabotaging Irish industry. I am in thorough sympathy with the policy of developing every industry which it is possible to develop here. I disagree however with the policy of furthering industrial development by the creation of monopolies. I regard the principle of giving a monopoly of the manufacture of any article a bad one. And it is in my opinion particularly bad in the case of sewing cotton where there are so many qualities and varieties as to make it practically impossible for a single firm to cater efficiently for the trade of the country. Sewing cotton is one of the most important raw materials of the clothing trade. Nothing causes so much inconvenience in a factory or retards production more than bad or indifferent qualities of sewing cotton. Managers of factories have, therefore, to exercise great care in the selection of sewing cotton for the various processes. Experienced managers have found that sewing cotton made by one particular firm is more suitable for one process than another and, accordingly, to get the most suitable threads for the different processes one has to go to two or three different makers. And now, if manufacturers are compelled to buy from one firm all the qualities and varieties they require, I am afraid it will result in needless loss, inconvenience, and dislocation of business.
I notice that the firm with which the Westport factory is associated is the British Thread Mills of Leicester —no doubt a very reputable and efficient firm. They do not, however, according to my information, manufacture thread from the raw cotton. They do not spin the raw cotton into yarn for the manufacture of thread. They are what is known in the trade as "doublers." They buy the single ply yarn from spinners, put it through the process known as "doubling," then wind it and spool it and in case of coloured threads, dye or mercerise it. It is, I understand, these later processes which it is proposed to undertake at Westport. The British Thread Mills will buy the yarn from British spinners, "double" it in the mill at Leicester, and send it across to Westport to be wound or spooled. The Minister stated in the Dáil that they were not going to spin yarn from raw cotton in this country nor did they desire cotton yarn to be spun here. That is, I suppose, because the trade of the country is too small to keep a mill going for the spinning of yarn— and to my mind the trade of the country is too small for any single firm to produce on an economic basis—even from imported yarns—the large variety of threads and the different forms of make-up required by the manufacturers and the domestic retail shops of the country.
Does the Minister think that a concern of the dimensions of the factory at Westport, even when it is fully developed and has the maximum of 200 hands employed, can possibly produce thread in the innumerable varieties and in the 360 different shades which are produced in Great Britain to-day—all of which are now required by modern fashions?
The Minister has explained that in the meantime these threads will be allowed to be imported free of duty. I think it will be a very considerable time before the Westport factory will be able to produce anything but the very plainest lines in thread, and that for years they will be coming for licences to import threads that they cannot produce. No doubt the Minister will grant licences but it will be interesting to see if manufacturers will continue to get licences or if licences will be given only to the mills. If they are, it will be interesting to know what they will charge for imported threads. The Minister said in the Dáil that arrangements had been made so that the prices of Westport products would not be higher than the corresponding prices in Great Britain. He stated that that was a very satisfactory arrangement in the Government's opinion. So it would in everyone's opinion if it was carried out. Would the Minister be surprised to learn that the firm in Westport is demanding prices far in excess of those current in Great Britain?
How much?
I can show the Minister quotations and I can show Senator MacEllin some quotations received even within the last month.
Quote one.
Yes, I will give one quotation. The Westport firm quoted 67/- per gross for thread which can be bought in Great Britain for 48/- and 50/—where they wanted 2/5½ for 10,000-yd. cones used in the hosiery trade as against 1/8½, the price at which they are at present being bought. According to my arithmetic, that is roughly a trifle of 45 per cent. more than the price current in Great Britain. The Minister mentioned that the total requirements of this country amounted to £75,000, and 45 per cent. on that would mean £33,750, which I regard as a very tidy sum with which to reward yearly the unselfish zeal of the British Thread Mills, Ltd., of Leicester, for sending their yarns over to be finished in Westport. Of course, people may say that if manufacturers here have to pay an increased price for raw materials it involves no hardship, as they can pass on the price to the consumer.
But what about firms trying to do an export trade which, I think, in the opinion of the Minister, is a very commendable form of enterprise? I say that Irish firms in the shirt and collar trade can have no chance of doing an export trade if they have to pay 45 per cent. more for thread than their competitors in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I know an instance where an Irish firm within the past two years, which heretofore competed for big London contracts at the January and July sales, lost these contracts merely by having to pay 33? per cent. duty on cardboard boxes which they could not get in Dublin at any price lower than the price in Derry, plus the duty. Two very big orders were lost and, if in addition to the duty on cardboard boxes, 45 per cent. more is to be paid on thread, the bit of export trade that is left will be wiped out.
The Minister made what I think was a sensational statement in the Dáil about an organised and well-planned conspiracy between a British combine and certain wholesale merchants to smash the Westport factory. Since he made the statement I have been making inquiries in trade circles, and I could not find anyone who knew anything about it, or who heard anything about it. What is definitely known is that a certain amount of thread is being imported as the Minister explained, and that certain firms took advantage of the loose word ing of the Government regulations and imported considerable quantities of thread as three-ply yarn. They did so openly.
If the Government were caught napping and permitted thread to be imported as yarn they have only themselves to blame. If this is the only basis of the Minister's charge of a perfectly prepared and well-planned conspiracy, then I think the Minister's charge is very far-fetched. Of course the Minister may have other evidence. He says he has overwhelming evidence. If so, the best way to unmask and frustrate the conspiracy would be to make it public. It would be fairer to everyone concerned, and especially to people who know nothing about the conspiracy, and have got none of the dumped thread. At the present moment unfortunate manufacturers do not know where they are. The Minister said that licences were being issued freely for thread. As far back as last November they were refused licences to import thread and were referred for their supplies to the Irish Thread Company of Thomas Street, Dublin.
For the cotton thread?
Yes. I have personal experience of this. I was referred to this firm last November when I was refused a licence. I was told I would get supplies from Thomas Street, Dublin. When this firm was written to it took nearly three weeks to get a reply, and then curiously enough it came from Belfast. Sample orders were promised to be sent out at the end of January but they never came. Then they were promised in March, in April and in May, but they never came. The firm wrote a couple of weeks ago as follows:—
"That as the Free State Government had made thread a reserved commodity, the question still remains unsettled as to whether we shall be allowed to produce a proportion of the cotton required. Meantime, all our operations are suspended and no further quotations or samples will be sent out until the position is cleared up."
I read the Minister's statement in the Dáil and I heard his statement here, that this firm had lodged an objection to thread being made a reserved commodity but that their objection was not pressed. I wonder why their objection was not pressed and if any influence was used to have it withdrawn. The Minister stated that this firm operated only in linen thread. If that is so, why was their name given as being able to supply cotton thread? Westport is not yet in production. They have sample orders in hands for over five weeks which they have not delivered, and if manufacturers had not had the foresight to lay in a stock of thread their workers would be idle for the last month.
If the Minister wants to have thread made in this country, why does he make it a reserved commodity and allow manufacturers to be left at the mercy of one firm? If the monopolists have a grudge against any particular firm or do not think you are a nice person to take tea with, they can absolutely ruin the business by holding up supplies or by sending them thread made from an inferior yarn. Of course, they could appeal to the Department and look for redress, but it would take a month to have a complaint investigated. In the meantime business would be held up. I cannot understand why, in the manufacture of this article, the Minister should want to eliminate competition and to get "a corner" in it. Most of the evils of the world's industrial situation to-day result from the cornering of commodities. In most countries the wit of statesmen is baffled to counteract the craze of "cornering." Here our statesmen are going out of their way to create "cornering." There are just as eminent firms in the "doubling" trade as the British Thread Mills, Ltd., of Leicester, and I am sure more than one of them would only be too glad to come here and start operations if given the same facilities as the Leicester people.
It is only fair to manufacturers and users of thread that their eggs should not be all placed in one basket. They should have the advantage of competition in the production of thread. The Minister and the Department should make an effort to get other firms to start operations similar to the Westport one, because competition is the only effective guarantee that manufacturers have that prices will be controlled or that quality will be kept up. I understand that the great object of the Control of Manufactures Act, under which this Order was made, is to prevent foreign control of industrial concerns here. Will not the British Thread Mills, Ltd., of Leicester effectively control the Irish Sewing Cotton Company of Westport? No doubt Saorstát citizens may control 50 per cent. of the share capital. But I do not think it is suggested that the people who possess 50 per cent of the share capital at Westport have even I per cent. knowledge of the trade. The British Thread Mills of Leicester will supply all the technical knowledge, and by supplying all the yarns, they will as effectively control the Westport concern as if it were a branch of their own mill which, in fact, it will be. What we are asked to approve of is the giving of a monopoly to the British Thread Mills, Ltd., of Leicester, and to permit them to exploit Irish manufacturers and users of sewing cotton in the matter of price. The quotations sent out by the firm show that they are already attempting to do this. These quotations prove that they are going to make good use of their monopoly, and to extract from Irish manufacturers and users of thread the highest price they can for their products. If the Minister will insist on confining the trade to a single firm that thus early shows, I might say, its grasping propensity, and enables it to create a corner in thread, then I think he is doing a very bad day's work for Irish industry, and instead of helping industrial development he will hamper and hinder it.
I do not intend to spin a yarn as long as Senator MacLoughlin. While the Senator was obviously sincere in what he had to say for those associated with the trade, nevertheless he was definitely pessimistic. That is typical of the general attitude that has been adopted by the Opposition towards the development of Irish industries since the present Government took office. The general feeling that was then held has been exploded, that we could not do this and should not do that. The Senator made a lot of bones about giving a monopoly in this industry. The total thread trade of the Free State is worth only about £60,000.
The Minister said £75,000.
Taking it at £75,000, surely the ordinary country trader, not to speak of an industry like this, would have that turnover in 12 months and his profits would not be such a lot.
He would hardly get 45 per cent.
In a trade of £75,000 it can hardly be suggested that there is room for others to come in and compete, apart from the fact that the Minister can always question the prices being charged. I put it to Senator MacLoughlin that Coats are one of the greatest cotton thread manufacturers in the world. They had practically a monopoly here up to the present. Ninety-five per cent. of the trade of the country was done by Coats and they charged their own prices.
Ninety-five per cent. of the manufacturers of this country did not buy their thread from Coats.
If you are right, the Departmental statistics are wrong. The fact remains that they did the great bulk of the trade. That is generally admitted.
Of the retail trade.
They had such a grip on the drapery wholesale trade here that they practically charged their own prices and the prices of Coats here were 15 per cent. higher than the prices operating in England. Senator MacLoughlin comes along and makes a lot of disparaging remarks about the factory started here. Prices are quoted but we have control over the prices here now and we had no control over them up to now. The Senator says that this firm is only in a small way in the thread industry, while he admits that they are a very reputable firm. It is as well for the Seanad to know that the great manufacturing firm of Coats spin hardly one per cent. of the thread which they manufacture. That may be news to Senator MacLoughlin.
It is.
That is the fact. There are a score of spinning manufacturers from whom every thread mill in England buys. Why do they do that? Because different spinners specialise in the different qualities of thread and it is far more economic even for Coats to buy from some of these spinners than to spin themselves. It would be very bad policy for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to set up a spinning industry here. As a result of investigations by the Department and by its technical advisers, the conclusion has been arrived at that this industry can very well do what Coats are doing in England—buy the raw material most suitable for the trade of this country from the spinners and manufacture it. They intend to provide for all the requirements, in shades and quality, of the different manufacturers here and of the trade generally. Arrangements are being made to provide at least 200 different colours. They expect to be in a position to do the dyeing of 200 different shades before Christmas. These are the facts and, under the circumstances, I do not think that Senator MacLoughlin was justified in being so pessimistic. The British Thread Mills Company were one of the few firms in England that survived the intensive price-cutting by Coats with a view to bringing them under the combine. The fact that they were able to survive is a justification of the quality of their thread. In the factory now about to be set up, we shall have the advantage free of all their technical advice and all the experience which they have acquired during the last 40 years in England. When they were able to survive that competition in England, I am sure they will provide just as good quality in their Westport factory. In the Dáil, a lot of remarks were made which were, to say the least, unfair. I do not mind Deputy Dillon's remarks—that he would get a firm of repute to spin and make thread in this country within two weeks. That man was only talking in glorified ignorance of the subject.
I do not think you ought to allude to a member of the other House in that way. The Deputy has not an opportunity to defend his conduct here.
In the circumstances, one cannot very well avoid making some defence.
In a general way.
I have no connection in any shape or form with this factory but I am from Mayo and this is the first factory which has gone to Mayo. It is established in one of the poorest and most populous districts along the western seaboard. These people are not interested in politics or in anything but the development of the West. The remarks made were not fair. These are not the type of people who will enter into public controversy to defend their position. Suggestions of sweated labour were made about the factory. That is not so. The machines were only erected within the last fortnight and are now only on trial. They are not working to capacity at all, and they are likely to go wrong for the next week or two. The mechanics are still, more or less, running them in. In these circumstances, only a few girls are employed. The directors of the company selected about 20 girls and brought them across to England. These girls were brought from the farm-houses, had no experience of industrial life and had never before stood at such machines. They paid the expenses of these girls, paid for their keep and gave them 10/- per week pocket-money while over there. On their return, some of them were quite proficient but more of them, naturally, were not. Last week was really the first week some of them got to work properly at the machines and one girl earned 36/6 last week. The basis of payment, I need not say, will be the same as that in England. The conditions of work—payment, hours, and so forth—will be identical with the conditions in England.
Everything will be the same except the price of the article.
Will the Senator give us his authority for the statement he has made, seeing that the Minister was not in a position to make a similar statement when challenged in the Dáil?
I live within a few miles of the factory, and I have stated what the position is.
Can the Senator make that statement on behalf of the factory, since he states that he has no interest in it financially?
I have no interest in the factory, financially or in any other form, except that I am a Mayo man and that this factory is in Mayo. I have stated that publicly. I have explained the position as I see it. Everybody in Mayo knows that these girls were brought across to England and trained there. I hope that the same results will be got by the girls working in the factory in Westport as in the English factory in time. When they have experience, and when they have learned the art, I have no doubt they will be able to earn the same wages as are earned by these girls in England, which are from £2 to £3 a week. Naturally, it is all piece-work. The industry has not yet started, and the least people might do is leave it alone. If anything which is seriously and radically wrong occurs, representations can be made in this House. It will take some weeks to get the machines working normally, and, with experience, I think it will be found between now and Christmas that the conditions are good. Those in charge seem to be anxious to treat their employees properly and to give them fair wage conditions. If they do not, the Bill now coming from the Dáil will operate.
I hope that the very reasoned and well-informed statement of Senator MacLoughlin will receive the careful consideration of the Minister. I think it deserves fairer treatment than that accorded it by Senator MacEllin. I am prepared to accept Senator MacEllin as an authority on eggs and matters of that kind but, in matters connected with thread, I should much prefer to accept the evidence and authority of Senator MacLoughlin, who is closely associated with that business. It is, I think, utterly unfair that every time that anybody offers criticism—no matter how fair, how unbiased and how unprejudiced—mala fides must be attributed to him and he must be accused of trying to sabotage the industry under discussion. Senator MacEllin has indulged in special pleading. He says he has no connection whatever with the firm concerned and yet he proceeds to pledge the firm in regard to such important matters as prices and conditions of service for the employees. I do not know what authority he has for that. We are asked to accept the statement of a Senator who has no connection with the business as binding the firm or as something that is worth considering. The firm could repudiate that statement to-morrow or even to-day, so that his statement is of no value in view of his repudiation of connection with the firm.
I want the Minister to take special notice of what Senator MacLoughlin has said. We are giving a monopoly to a branch of an English firm. It will be just an agency for the English firm. We are giving that monopoly in connection with a very technical manufacturing process—an article that, as the Senator pointed out, affects every branch of the clothing industry. It involves 360 different colours, for one thing. The technical experience at the disposal of that firm is, presumably, represented by the few girls who were sent over for a couple of months to Leicester to be trained and who come back trained for the turning out of the many colours and the hundreds of different shades required in this industry.
The Minister says that he is going to ensure that the prices charged here will be world prices, or the prices for the same thread, quality for quality, that are charged in Great Britain. That is his promise. Senator MacLoughlin gave a quotation from a firm which, in one case, demanded 45 per cent. more, quality for quality, than the same thread would command in Great Britain. Now, that was not a mere statement, because the Senator read it from the billheads of the firm itself. I trust that the Minister will take that statement and examine it. I hope he will go to the firm and see what they mean by their promise, and also that any promises they make are going to be implemented. Quite a number of clothing factories have been established here. They have been opened with full pomp of flag and trumpet. These are now going to be absolutely sabotaged and held up by the activities of the "boloney" factory in Westport. It probably will not be able to supply the materials they require, or it may insist on prices that will result in raising the cost of the commodity to the consumer.
This is not a "boloney" factory.
One should consider whether it is good policy in setting up one factory, seriously to injure another factory or, indeed, numerous factories, and so put out of employment the workers employed in those factories. Senator MacLoughlin gave us an example of an application in regard to thread. He was referred to a Dublin firm and months afterwards he found that he could not get the thread. Have we any guarantee that the same thing will not happen here when the whole thing is vested in one firm? I would like the Minister to assure himself now that he can rely upon the promises given by the promoters of this firm being implemented.
In regard to the question of rates of pay and conditions of service, we have Senator MacEllin's assurance that they will pay full trade union rates. I would like to know if the Minister is in a position to confirm that?
The Senator has the section of the Act of Parliament.
That can be interpreted in various ways. Senator MacEllin says that the rates generally will be from £2 to £3 a week to girls. I suggest that we should ascertain if a rate will be fixed according to the fair wages provision. Will it be up to £3 per week for girls? It could be a miserably low rate, and it could be far and away below the rate paid for similar work in Leicester. We should like to have an assurance that the firm at Westport are not going to employ sweated labour at a lower rate than they pay on the other side, because of the fact that they have got a monopoly here for the thread that is to be used throughout the whole of the State.
My attitude is somewhat different from that of the previous speakers. I am prepared to concede that the firm in question is very well equipped, that it is a firm with a good reputation, and that it will pay wages probably on the Leicester scale as the boot manufacturers from that city have done. I imagine from the course of the discussion, that some conflict arose from the fact that the Coats combine has been mainly supplying the retail trade for the home use of cotton, and that Senator MacLoughlin is more concerned with the trade from the point of view of the manufacturers in the new sewing industries that have been established and are developing. It is certainly a very important matter to be assured that price, quality and variety will be available for them. Now, all these requirements may be well satisfied by the Minister's assurance. The question of price, and the quotation given by Senator MacLoughlin, appear to me to be due to the fact that there is a 40 per cent. duty, and the Westport people appear to have interpreted their assurances to the Minister on this: the British price plus duty.
I said the price in Great Britain.
The price in Great Britain plus the duty here. If that is not so they appear to have broken their promises. I am sure the Minister will look into that, because I have no doubt he has the interests of sewing firms, of manufacturers of clothing and such like in his care.
But, what is a more important matter to me is the policy that is involved in this proposition. It was under Part III of the Control of Manufactures Act that the power that is now under discussion was conferred. When that measure was under discussion the Minister gave assurances to the Dáil and, possibly, to the Seanad that it was not likely that "more than two or three Orders at the most" would be made under that Part of the Act. This is Order No. 1, and this is a company with a capital of £20,000 to deal with a commodity of which the sale will probably be in or about £75,000. I think it is a very good point in the Government's policy that they should seek for the distribution of industries throughout the country, but I am very doubtful indeed as to the wisdom of establishing an industry of this kind in Westport under the provisions of this Act. If that policy is followed one can look for perhaps 20 other industries of similar dimensions with a consumption value for £50,000 to £100,000 a year which might possibly be established in different parts of the country. In fact that would be to proceed by way of this Act to establish similar firms with monopolies.
That is not in accord with the understanding that was given when this Act was brought to the Dáil and the Seanad. At that time the Minister said that proposals were under examination for certain chemical industries which involved the investment of very large sums of money. The impression created was that the powers of Part III of the Act were to deal with classes of industry of which only two or three were likely to be required; where large sums of money would be necessary, and where it would be impossible to get the equipment or the technical knowledge required within the country. The feeling was that there would be no possibility of establishing such industries without such powers and such promises.
Here we are departing from the notion that those powers of monopoly are to be reserved for these large industries. Cement and motor tyres were taken, as instances of the kind of thing that was in mind. Following the passage of two Bills dealing with these commodities we were encouraged to believe that this power was given to the Minister to deal with similar classes of industry. Now we come to a £20,000 industry and a £75,000 market. That, to my mind, puts it in a very different category. I am very loth to allow the powers of that Act to be used for the establishment of this kind of industry, with this kind of monopoly, and I think it would require much more evidence of the need and the necessity for this procedure before the House could pass this resolution.
Senator MacLoughlin did make a very well-reasoned speech. I listened to it with very great attention. I do not know whether the Senator is opposed to the establishment of this factory in Westport, or whether he is in favour of balancing industry as between the east and the west.
I am not at all opposed to it.
I am very glad to hear that, because we have felt for a considerable time past that Dublin, and the east of this country generally, is, being spoon-fed and pampered at the expense of the west. I listened with very great attention to this debate and to the speeches of Senator MacLoughlin and Senator MacEllin. I am not surprised that Senator MacEllin is in favour of a factory at Westport. I have been there, and I have seen the necessity for giving employment to the people in that town as well as at Newport, Achill and other centres in Mayo, but I am puzzled at the attitude of the Labour Party.
That is not unusual.
I have often spoken in favour of many of the wild-cat proposals of my friend, Senator Farren. I would like to know what is the attitude of Senator O'Farrell on this question? Is he in favour of a factory at Westport or is he not?
The Senator knows very well that is not the issue. He is simply raising a hare.
Is the Senator in favour of the establishment of this factory and will he have the pluck to say so, or is he against it, or is he in favour of the big monopolies? If he is in favour of Coats' thread, and has come here to speak on behalf of Coats' thread, let us have plain speaking here.
And honest speaking.
Will the Senator be honest for once in his life?
Let us have plain speaking because we are going to consider our attitude in view of some of the speeches that have been made here by the so-called advocates of labour.
There are just a few points that I wish to deal with. On one side we have a Senator telling us that a small firm employing 200 people is being established in Westport, and that it is going to be carried on under the control of a British firm. On the other side we have another Senator telling us that up to this the thread industry has been controlled by Messrs. Coats. It seems to me that while you are doing away with one firm that is outside your control, you are introducing another firm that has its principal centre of manufacture also outside the country. From the course of the debate one gathers that employment is going to be given to 200 or 300 girls in this new industry. The question of price is an important one. We have been told by those who claim to speak with authority that present prices are extremely high. Now is the time, I suggest, when we are establishing this new industry st Westport to make sure that the prices charged will at any rate not be higher than the prices charged in England, and that, if possible, they will be lower. We know what happens when monopolies are created. Prices go up. Now is the time to take steps to control prices, and not leave it until it is too late, when the most that we can do if there are any complaints is to raise the matter on the adjournment. Steps should be taken now to ensure that the price charged for thread here will not be any higher than it is now. In view of what we have been told we should see to it that the price is not higher than that charged in England. I fail to see myself how the prices can be the same because there is very keen competition in England in this trade. If this Leicester firm, or any other firm in the trade in England, quote for thread in this country they are going to quote for as high a price as they can possibly set. The Westport firm when they start have got to train people. Their turnover will be very small and they will have to pay freight on the thread. I fail to see how they can produce it exactly at the same price as British thread unless they are given some form of subsidy by the Government. We have had experience of some other monopolies in this country. They did not appear to be monopolies, but in actual fact they are. I am referring to the flour milling industry, which has forced up the price of an essential commodity for the people to a point which is very much higher than the price in England. Possibly the same thing is going to happen in the case of this industry. Senator O'Farrell made a point regarding the question of the wages. If this firm is going to pay the same rate of wages as is being paid in Leicester I find it difficult to understand, taking into account the other charges which have been enumerated, how they are going to be able to sell thread at the price at which it is being sold in England.
I desire to make a few observations on matters which I am rather troubled myself about and which, perhaps, troubled some other Senators in the course of the discussion. I am sure everybody will admit, notwithstanding the method of criticism of some of my friends and what has been said by Senator MacLoughlin, that we are all trying to do the best we can. This is a matter of business and we ought to be very careful. Senator MacLoughlin, evidently, is a specialist in this matter and knows what he is talking about. He has certainly given us a great deal of information. I should like to get for my own guidance and the guidance of the House a little information from the Minister. Before I would ask him for that information I should like to say that I am sure everybody in the House would regret very much that any action of this sort would have the inevitable result of raising the price of what is, perhaps, a necessary commodity, and everybody in the House would regret it if the employment of labour was at a wage that would not commend itself to anybody who is interested in the worker. Although some of us do not profess it perhaps as ardently as others, I am sure we all feel that everything that can be done by this House to protect the interests of the workers should be done, no matter what Party we belong to.
This appears to be one of the first Orders of this kind. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to tell us, because I am sure we are all anxious to assist in the promotion of industry and the giving of employment, for what period the Order will be in force. Perhaps he would tell us also what power of revision or supervision there is. I am sure the House will be perfectly satisfied that when the time for revision comes the Minister in office will bear in mind that he has a duty to perform as regards the remuneration of the worker and the price that is charged for the commodity as well as the supply of the commodity as it is required by the trade. While what I am saying is meant to get some information for myself, I hope it will help us to come to the decision we all desire, to help industry as far as we can.
I want to get a little information also. Would it be within the competence of the Minister, provided this Order were passed into law and he found that the clothing trade in which thread is a vital material were dissatisfied with the products of this factory, to open the ports and let in thread from Britain? In that way he would have a counter-stroke and be able to remedy whatever damage may be done. We are all in favour of helping industry. I think in that way a check could be kept upon this factory. I do not want to go in for the industry of yarn-spinning. We have had enough of yarn-spinning here this evening. We had Senator Comyn yarning about the eastern coast.
You sell milk at 1/- a gallon.
Really it is not a vital matter.
There is one thing to which I should like to draw attention. It is rather a word of criticism as to the procedure involved in this. The Minister has informed us that the assent of the two Houses of the Oireachtas is necessary to make orders of this kind operative. That may be so in theory but, in actual fact, is it expedient or is it likely that when the Minister has more or less entered into an understanding with a firm and the firm has embarked on a certain expenditure in the preliminary work of erecting a factory and a certain stage in the construction has been reached that the Oireachtas is going to refuse the Order? I say it is worth consideration whether or not the time for placing such an Order before the Oireachtas should not be before that stage has been reached so that if, upon examination, the mature opinion of the Oireachtas was that such an Order should not be made the persons concerned would not be involved as a result of such decision in serious financial loss, as undoubtedly this company would be if this Order was refused. I think it is hardly fair either to the persons concerned that their capital should be hazarded by the possibility of the Oireachtas refusing the Order and it is hardly fair to the Oireachtas to put them in the position that they are not really free to judge the matter on its merits because an adverse decision on their part might have an adverse effect upon an enterprise.
I should like to say that at the outset of this discussion I asked the Minister certain questions because I was anxious to protect existing industries in the country. From information that I have received, I felt it was necessary that either a guarantee should be got that this particular firm would be in a position to manufacture certain classes of thread that are required for carrying on industries, and if they were not in a position to supply the requirements of the manufacturers that licences would be granted to those manufacturers to enable them to get the raw materials to carry on their industry. I intended making no speech further than that. I do not think it is necessary for any member of the Labour Party to say that he is in favour of an industry being started in Westport. That goes without saying. There is no necessity for anybody to get up in this House in the best Jeremiah Dempsey style, to ask is the East in favour of the West. That particular type of thing may be suitable for the cross-roads but it is not suitable for a legislative assembly. Then to go on to talk about alleged advocates of labour and to talk about dishonesty——
I never did.
You talked about being honest.
Senator O'Farrell talked about "boloney." I should like to know what that means.
The Senator takes great objection because the Labour Party are interested to know what the conditions of employment will be for the people who are to be engaged in Westport or anywhere else, the Senator, of course, not being a man who has to look after the interests of the working classes. A capitalist like the Senator who has interests in in the West and the East — recent events have proved that he is a great champion of the West, but when there is benefit to be got for himself he is not averse to having an interest in the East—is the man who talks about the alleged advocates of labour. I suggest to the Senator, for his own peace of mind, that the less of that talk we hear from him the better. I could go back over 20 years and remind the Senator of his partiality to the Labour Party more than 20 years ago. I do not want to be forced to do it.
Say anything you have to say.
I want to warn the Senator that if he is not more careful in the future in his remarks about the Labour Party he will hear something more than is good for him.
Do not make threats, say it out.
This Bill implies a monopoly. Although we are all certainly in favour of the establishment of the industry it is right that we should understand that big sacrifices, probably, are involved in the establishment of this as well as many other industries. The statement made by Senator MacLoughlin deserves the most serious consideration. Amongst the many things he said—and he produced figures—was that the prices of this very important material were likely to be increased. Everybody knows that the cost of clothes has gone up. To bring the matter down to bedrock I suggest that an addendum should be made to this Order to ensure that the prices of thread will not be increased beyond the British prices for thread of similar quality.
I desire to deal briefly with the remarks made by Senator Wilson. He suggested, as a means of keeping prices in order, that the market should be opened to the British thread. History has told us that whenever an industry of any importance succeeded in this country English manufacturers flooded the market until they succeeded in crushing out the home products. When they had crushed them out they came along and doubled the price that had been charged before the establishment of the Irish industry. I suggest to the Minister that he can regulate the prices through the Prices Commission or some such organisation, but I advise him that in no circumstances, while a new industry is finding its legs in Ireland, should he open the market for foreign competition.
What astonishes me in this debate is the sudden and furious rage of the Labour Party against the establishment of a factory in the West of Ireland. Nothing seems to annoy them so much as to say that the West should be looked after to some extent and that there should be an occasional factory set up there. That attitude is quite beyond my understanding. I come from County Mayo. I was brought up there. I have no interest in this factory beyond that I should like to see something done for the West. We have very few factories of any sort in the West. Why should this issue be raised just because we attempt to start a factory in the West? I do not want to enter into an argument about this, but I do feel annoyed by the side issues that have been raised. I think that Senator Farren should know better than to use the terms he has used in this connection. As a matter of fact, I was quite surprised at the terms he used. I am quite sure that the Senator is a reasonable person enough, and I do not see why he should be so enraged. Senator O'Farrell, who raised the storm first, started off by using similar arguments. I think that this matter should be argued in a more reasonable way and that we should wait to find out what the Minister has to tell us. I am interested, mainly, to see our eyes turned westwards. The eyes of Ireland have been always turned eastwards, for many reasons, into which I will not enter. I want to see our eyes turned westwards and to see as many industries established on the West coast as there are on the East coast.
I do not know what the Minister will say with regard to Senator MacLoughlin's statement as to the figures quoted by this firm, but it seems to me that, in administering the Act under which this Order is made, the object and justification for giving a monopoly is that the goods should be supplied at, approximately, the same prices, or very little above the prices, at which they could be imported, and that the conditions for the workers should be equivalent to those that prevail ordinarily outside. The persons who get a monopoly get very considerable advantages, and it is easily conceivable that one concern, operating in a small market, might be practically an economic unit, whereas, if there were not a monopoly, there would be other firms engaging in the same business, with the result that the prices would be different; whereas, when there is a monopoly, and where there is not, perhaps, the same selling difficulties as there would be if there were not a monopoly, and where there are other advantages such as a monopoly gives, the granting of a monopoly is justified only by making sure that, approximately, the same value is given as the outside manufacturer would give. While, at the same time, there may be some fractional increases in the price, owing to special circumstances, the price ought to be somewhat near the price of the imported article. Even the biggest outside manufacturer, where there is not a monopoly, has all sorts of organisations to maintain which are not necessary where a monopoly exists. Such a manufacturer has to face all sorts of difficulties which the man with the monopoly would not have to face, and I think that the principle which ought to be observed in this case, and in all cases, ought to be one whereby the manufacturer paid for his monopoly by giving value that could not be expected by ordinary tariff arrangements where there would be a splitting of the arrangements, and so forth. I hope that the Minister will give some answer to the effect that, if he cannot deny, as I presume he cannot, that these quotations are correct, he will be able to say that he has come to some understanding whereby, after the first initial period in which the workers have had time to become expert and the lines and ordinary routine of the industry had been established, such prices will not be quoted and that the industry will be able to give 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. or something like that.
I do not want to intervene in this debate, but as Senator Colonel Moore seems to think that the Labour Party opposes the starting of a factory in the West, and lest there should be some other Senator of the same opinion, I wish to say that we are not opposed to the establishment of a factory in the West, but that we are very apprehensive of a factory being started, whether in the West, the East or anywhere else, where the working conditions will not be good. We are speaking purely on behalf of the employees, and, surely, we need not offer any apology to anybody, whether in this House or outside it, for that anxiety. I have listened to a good deal of the discussion. Unfortunately, I was not here when Senator Comyn made an uncalled-for attack on the Labour Party.
Senator Comyn did not make any attack on the Labour Party. Senator Foran was not here. It is a case of "Dubhairt bean liom go ndhubhairt bean lei."
I was only going to say that I am possessed of some Christian charity and that I am not going to take the same line as Senator Comyn did. I want to say, however, that the only useful part taken in the discussion was the part taken by Senator MacLoughlin. Senator MacLoughlin talked as a man who knows his business—a practical man—and, naturally, he is representative of the manufacturing mind in this country, and he wants to have an assurance that he will be able to carry on with his business. I happen to know that Senator MacLoughlin's business is mainly an export business and it is very much to his credit that he can compete in the London market with any manufacturer in or outside this country. Consequently, when he talks on this matter, he talks as a man who is thoroughly competent to discuss the matter, and, as he is apprehensive about the position, I am sure that the Minister will largely confine himself to the remarks or points raised by Senator MacLoughlin, and I must say that, whether it is because of his practical knowledge of the business or not, it is something unusual for him to speak in this way. The Senator has been extremely modest or moderate in putting forward his case.
For once!
Well, he knows his business anyway, and he certainly confines himself to the real points at issue on the Bill, which nobody else did.
Perhaps I should say that the passage of this resolution, and the making of this article a reserved commodity, does not, of itself, confine its manufacture to anybody. There is no statutory restriction on the number of persons who may receive licences, but, in fact, I do not think that there would be room for more than one firm to engage in it so long as the market remains at its present size. Of course, the market is expanding and, at some other stage, for various reasons, it might be desirable to issue a licence to some other concern to undertake this manufacture; but the intention of the Order is that, if there were a second firm licensed to manufacture at any time, it would have to be in the same neighbourhood as the first factory or else such arrangements made as would protect the first factory so far as possible. So far as prices are concerned, it is intended that, when the preliminary period of training and so on is over, the prices, ex factory at Westport, will not exceed the prices ex factory at Leicester. That is not a matter of a promise. It is a matter of an undertaking that can be imposed on this firm as a condition of its licence if this resolution is passed. If they do not comply with these conditions, they will find themselves subject to a penalty which may amount to £50 a day and also to the revocation of their licence. It is not anticipated, however, that that will happen. It is possible that the price quoted at the moment may be higher than the British price, but it must be remembered that the firm has not yet started production. At the moment, it is only engaged in running in machines, and I imagine that, for some time to come, it will be only manufacturing for stock and that it will be some weeks before they will be able to offer goods for sale. In any event, the provision as to prices does not become operative until the licence is issued, and the licence will be subject to the conditions I have mentioned. I am sure that Senators will understand that a firm getting a licence under this provision is in an entirely different position from a firm getting a licence under another part of the Act, because a licence under Part III can be made subject to very severe conditions—so severe that, in certain cases, such as those mentioned by Senator Johnson, some firms preferred to proceed without having a reserve commodity order—and so far as prices are concerned, the undertaking given by the firm concerned is that the prices, ex factory at Westport, will not exceed the prices, ex factory, at Leicester, and that will be much more easily enforceable in that way than by the Prices Commission. I do not know what prices the factory are quoting at the present time. I am surprised to hear they are quoting any price at all, because I understood that they were only producing for stock at the moment and were not in a position to supply goods for sale.
I will let the Minister see the letter.
I will be interested in it. The important thing is the comparison between prices here and prices ex Leicester.
I may say that this letter is not addressed to my firm but to an outside one, an independent firm. I checked their prices and my statement is correct.
I will be interested in that matter. The firm is not subject to the undertaking at the moment. It has not got its licence. The Order does not become operative until the Resolution is passed. The licence will then be issued, and from the date of its issue the firm will be subject to the conditions imposed therein, and its undertaking in respect to prices, that under like conditions of sale ex factory Westport prices will not exceed prices ex factory Leicester. It is their intention to make the full variety of threads and, in so far as they may not be in a position any time to supply threads of any class or colour, manufacturers will be allowed to import free of duty. At present licences to import are not being issued because there are adequate supplies in the country. That is not entirely correct because manufacturers are getting supplies. The hold-up in licences is in respect to persons engaged in the sale of thread. In any event, the issue of licences will be resumed in a short time, when the position in respect to stocks of thread in this country will be clarified. The earlier that we can get to the position that we can resume the issue of licences the better I will be pleased, because the present position is most undesirable.
I do not want to deal further with that except to say that the existence of these stocks does not ease the situation unless these stocks are sold. So far persons who hold these stocks at present are not disposed to put them on the market at all. It is true that the factory at Westport does not propose to spin cotton yarn from raw cotton. I do not think its requirements would justify the installation of a spinning plant for doing it. Before it is possible to have a cotton spinning plant we will have to have the cotton weaving industry established on a more extended scale. The next stage in the extension of cotton will be an extension of weaving and only after that the installation of a spinning plant. That would be possible if we were weaving cotton cloths that are now imported, but not otherwise. It is not intended to give the factory at Westport sole rights to import cotton thread. They have no exclusive licence to import cotton thread. These licences are issued to persons previously engaged in the importation of cotton thread. The licences that will be issued in respect of that commodity will be to persons previously engaged in the business of importation and in proportion to their previous imports. That is the ordinary practice followed by the Department, because it appears to be the fairest method of allocating the business remaining amongst those who have been previously engaged in it. Up to the present, so long as licences were issued we were not so rigid in the restrictions. The necessity for rigidity and control will not arise until a fairly large quantity of thread is available for sale from the Westport factory.
I would be curious to look into the matter of the reference of an applicant for a licence to the Irish Thread Company of Thomas Street, Dublin. It is quite possible a mistake was made by an officer of the Department. Obviously a mistake was made somewhere, because we would never refer to the Linen Thread Company an applicant for a licence for cotton threads, particularly when the effect of the Order is to prevent that Linen Thread Company manufacturing cotton thread. Under no circumstances would we encourage them to do that. We would certainly object to that company doing so until they have fulfilled what they undertook to do with regard to linen thread when the duty was imposed on linen thread, and when this firm was installing plant and when they are not yet fully in manufacture. All processes of manufacture are not being done. Under these circumstances we are urging them to concentrate on the job they started before tackling any other job. If an applicant for a licence to import cotton thread was referred to that factory, it was clearly a mistake, because it is linen thread they are engaged in producing.
It is not quite correct to say that the purpose of the Control of Manufactures Act is to prevent foreign companies engaging in industry here. The purpose is to enable us to control foreign companies engaging in industry. We could not get this industry started without outside technical assistance and we could not get that assistance except by enabling the outside firm investing capital in the concern to ensure its safety by exercising effective technical control. It was on that basis the firm was established. It is possible when additional capital has to be secured for this undertaking—I mentioned that that would have to be undertaken in the future—that a higher proportion of the total capital will be held by Irish shareholders, and a greater part of the control exercised in Ireland. At present the capital is held 50 per cent. by the British Thread Company and 50 per cent. by Irish interests. There are four directors, two being Saorstát nationals and two British nationals. The chairman is one of the British directors. So far as rates of wages are concerned, Senators have not to rely entirely on the assurance of Senator MacEllin. The Department of Industry and Commerce are aware of the company's intention to organise the factory here on the same basis, in relation to hours of employment, and rates of wages, as the concern in Leicester. In any event, the statutory obligation is imposed on them, when the licence is issued, of paying fair wages. I think that gives the Department sufficient power to exercise control which ordinarily it cannot exercise.
In so far as Senator O'Farrell complained of Section 25 not being likely to be effective, I would point to the fact that it was inserted on the proposal of Senator Johnson when the Control of Manufactures Bill was before the Seanad. Senator O'Farrell can be assured that we will take good care that clothing and similar factories where thread is used as raw material will not be adversely affected to any extent which would interfere with their development. I do not think Senator Dillon was right in saying that the cost of clothing had gone up. I noticed in the returns received by the Department, dealing with the cost-of-living index, that it was clear during the past two or three years that the retail price of clothing has been going down. In fact, in the majority of the clothing trades, I think there is rather intensified competition amongst the firms which are operating to keep prices level. The licences which are issued under Reserved Commodity Orders are issued for an indefinite period. They are not issued for any fixed period. Conditions can be imposed which would have the effect of limiting them in respect to time. The licence, however, is ordinarily indefinite, subject only to revocation on the application of the licensee, or when the licensce has been convicted of a breach of one or other of the conditions.
Neither is there anything in the Reserve Commodity Order which imposes restrictions on the imports of sewing cotton. Sewing cotton is subject to 40 per cent. duty, and even if this Order were made and, if sewing cotton was a reserved commodity, there is nothing to prevent the removal of that duty or the regulation of thread imports, whichever we consider in the interests of the country. If, in fact, the factory engaged in production was not producing or not conforming with the conditions of the licence, the importation of thread would have to be resumed or increased to enable requirements to be met. In reply to Senator Milroy, I would like to say that the Seanad is quite free, as far as I am concerned, to reject this motion if they so choose. If the firm decided to proceed with the erection of their factory, before the Reserve Commodity Order was made and approved of by both Houses of the Oireachtas, that is their concern. Probably they would be involved in some loss if no Reserve Commodity Order was made. I think the net result would be that they would minimise that loss by transferring their plant from Westport to Dublin.
As Minister for Industry and Commerce, I would be completely discharged from any obligation if the Order was not made following rejection of the motion by the Seanad. In so far as the firm might be involved in loss by rejection of the Order, that is due to the fact that they decided to embark on the erection and equipment of the factory before the Order was confirmed. It is desirable that the Order should be made, because it is only when the Order is made we get power to impose the conditions I have referred to in respect of prices, quality, maximum output, and the other things set out in the Control of Manufactures Act.
The only other matter necessary to refer to was raised by Senator Johnson. He questioned generally the advisability of making a Reserved Commodity Order in respect of sewing cotton. I have not the particular words I used when the Bill was before the Seanad. My recollection is fairly clear that I indicated that Reserved Commodity Orders would be made in two types of cases, one where the industry could be established only on the basis of supplying the whole of the market from one concern, and where substantial capital investment was necessary. I gave an example of that type of industry, cement and rubber tyre manufacture. I also indicated that the Act gave power which could be used in order to secure the establishment of industries in localities in the west of the country where, in the ordinary way, manufacturers would not be likely to go, because they would place themselves at a competitive disadvantage as against manufacturers established in other centres. In the majority of cases we have to bargain with intending industrialists when they come to the Department with projects, and desire to get them to go outside Dublin, to towns around the country, where it is desired to have industrial activity commenced, by refusing to afford protection or some facility which always would be given, unless they conformed to Government policy in that regard. That is not a very satisfactory way.
In fact, a very large number of industrialists just proceed with their plans and are not in the position of requiring any facilities from the Department of Industry and Commerce, particularly when protection has already been afforded to an industry in which other people are engaged. In the case of the establishment of the factory in Westport, if we imposed a duty merely any other firm could put itself in a position to avail of that protection and could establish a factory. It would not require any facilities of any kind from the Government. No restrictions can be put upon it in order to get it to establish its factory in some other place than that which it chose to adopt.
I was referring to columns 1279 and 1281 of the Dáil Debates of June 28th, 1934.
I am speaking from my recollection. I referred to the desirability of trying to get industries established in certain areas. In fact, the only two Reserved Commodity Orders the Government proposed to make were for that purpose. The other one has not yet come before the Oireachtas. It may not be made because of certain reasons. In that case, it was proposed to make an order in respect of art silk knitted fabric. That was different from this case, inasmuch as there was no immediate proposition to establish a factory for that purpose. We proposed to make it a reserved commodity and to announce that licences would be given to anybody who would establish factories in certain named counties. That may not come to anything. In view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Control of Manufactures Act, it may not be possible to make that article a reserved commodity at all. This is the only case in which a Reserved Commodity Order has been made, so far, and the reason is the desire to establish an industry in the West.
Question put and agreed to.