Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Mar 1954

Vol. 43 No. 7

Industrial Research and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 1953—Committee and Final Stages.

Bill passed through Committee, reported without amendment, and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. McGuire

I do not wish to keep the House very long at this stage, but it is important in a Bill like this to deal with one or two points arising out of what is in the Bill itself and the objects of the Bill. This measure was welcomed from all sides of the House and any criticisms that were made or any points that arose in debate had no Party flavour of any kind. Any criticisms that arose were intended to be constructive to enable the Bill to work and to make it a success. I feel the Minister, when he was replying on the Second Stage of the Bill, gave expression to some ideas which, if they are not answered, might result in this Bill not having the desired effect. The Minister made it clear that he was very much behind this Bill and said that he would like to see standard marks in much greater use than they are at present.

A very important factor in the attainment of that object was dismissed very lightly by the Minister. We are supposed to be a vocational House, and I think we are, to a degree, vocational, as most of us have some specialised knowledge in some particular vocation. It is a little irritating from time to time when a Minister comes in and will not listen to people who have expert knowledge, from dealing with certain things every day, and who know more about them than the Minister does. I must pay a tribute to the Minister. He has himself an astonishing general knowledge and shows that knowledge on an astonishing number of occasions and on quite an astonishing number of Bills, but at the same time there are many points in particular vocations with which he is not really expertly conversant.

If standard marks are to be the success we would like them to be the atmosphere in which these goods are going to be sold is very important. When the Minister was speaking he showed a confusion of thought as between price maintenance and price rings. I feel that an understanding of this is absolutely essential if this Bill is to be properly carried out. Too much Government control or the wrong kind of Government control can completely stifle this and prevent people applying for marks. I would like briefly to explain the difference between price maintenance and price control.

Mr. Hearne

On a point of order, this is a tolerant House, but the Bill which we are passing has nothing to do with price—good, bad or indifferent.

Mr. McGuire

I am not saying that. I am showing what price has to do with the Bill, which is a different thing. This Bill is a Standard Marks Bill which we want to work. It is surely relevant at least to suggest the kind of atmosphere that should prevail if the Bill is to work.

An Cathaoirleach

A discussion of that atmosphere would arise more appropriately on the Second Stage.

Mr. McGuire

May I be permitted to show that what I am saying is relevant and that I am in order in saying it? If there is to be confusion as between price maintenance and price rings, and if people are going to be prevented from having price maintenance agreements in connection with standard marks, this Bill will not work. Surely that is relevant. I will be very brief. The difference between price maintenance and price rings is that in price maintenance you do not eliminate competition. There is still competition between all the people selling the same goods but having a standard mark; there is competition also between people who have not a standard mark but are still selling the same type of goods. A price ring is price maintenance in some commodity where there is complete monopoly. That is the difference. If this Bill we have before us here is going to work the Government must, in its trade regulations, have regard to the difference between price maintenance and price rings. If that is done I feel that the Bill may have some chance of achieving the success which the Minister said he would like it to achieve.

Mr. Douglas

Circumstances beyond my control prevented my being present for the Second Stage. I would like to take this opportunity, which I believe is fully in order, to say how much I and others in industry appreciate the work of the institute. I read through the debates and there were one or two references to the need to make the institute better known to manufacturers. I would like it to go out that there is no need to make it known to manufacturers. Any manufacturer who has a problem will write to the institute and will get a courteous reply. He will almost certainly get an examination of the problem and a discussion as to whether it is within the function of the institute to give assistance. Many manufacturers have already got assistance by way of research in some of their problems. The main object of this Bill is to provide more money for that research and to that extent I think it must be supported by everybody. We all feel that not only should we maintain industry here but that industry should have a very considerable degree of independence and should endeavour to go out on its own lines, having regard to circumstances and particularly having regard to the use of the natural resources of the country.

I have given a fair amount of consideration also to the question of standards, which are dealt with in the Bill. It is hoped that one of the effects of the Bill and the provision of more money will be greater use of standard marks. I would very much like to see it made pretty clear that, as regards Irish industry generally, the main object of our industrialists is to provide a standard of which we can be universally proud. That is not obtained solely or even mainly by standard marks. It will be achieved, I think, by standards set up by manufacturers themselves on which they put their own brands and their own names and which they will stand over, so that if errors occur they will take the goods back and replace them by new goods. Close co-operation between the institute and manufacturers who wish to have their own branded marks, whether or not they coincide with the standards, is a matter which will be of considerable value.

There has been a good deal of discussion recently on this and the Minister frequently makes references to the need for improving the standard of industry. I have no faith in improvement of the standard of industry by means of petty interference. I have great faith in it by means of the methods set out in this Bill, which is the exact opposite to that being carried out in other respects of Government policy. I am not going into the details. This Bill is essentially based on co-operation between the institute and manufacturers, whether collectively or as individuals. On that standard I see great hopes. If that is coupled with attempts to make it impossible—either by means of price or other regulations —for firms to have their own standards in consultation with the institute, then I see great danger. The principle on which this Bill stands is one which we can unanimously support and we can look forward to it with considerable promise.

I am very uneasy regarding the other tendency at the moment—it is not solely a matter of Government, but it is one which we meet in our business—the tendency to ask for the lowest conceivable price, with hardly any regard to standard. Certain manufacturers are being pressed to say what is the cheapest thing they can manage to make. I do not see a future for Irish industry on that basis. I do see a future on the basis of a high standard. If a small country is ever to make purely price competition the standard of its goods, it is liable to be beaten by big countries where you get big production and where very cheap articles can be produced. A small country which is proud of its own standard will have a certain number of manufacturers who will be definite about it, that they will not produce anything below a certain standard and that if they are beaten for price for the time being they will submit to that and let someone produce something cheaper. They will eventually find that they have held on to their reputation. On those lines I see a future for industry at home and, within certain limits, in the export market. For that reason, particularly on the lines of this Bill, I am in complete sympathy with its policy.

Mr. Hearne

I wish this Bill god-speed and I commend it to industrialists in Ireland. I commend it particularly to those who manufacture products that are used in the building industry. As a result of the application of a standard mark to materials like flue liners, glazed sewer pipes, and so on, they can be easily and readily specified as being up to a certain standard. The whole building trade has at heart the provision of a good article, be it in the form of a house or an extension.

No one is compelled to produce all his goods at that particular standard. I hope I did not seem too brusque with Senator McGuire in drawing his attention to the fact that price has nothing good, bad or indifferent, to do with the provisions of this Bill. The standard specifications may have a certain impact on price. I will quote one example. Glazed sewer pipes are normally sold to the trade in three qualities—first, second and third. The standard mark will now be applied, in accordance with the specification, to what are commonly known as "firsts" but, in the ordinary course of manufacture, it is utterly impossible to produce 100 per cent. "firsts" in the case of glazed sewer pipes.

Mr. Douglas

And most other things.

Mr. Hearne

The Senator anticipated me. The same applies to most other things. I quite agree with what the Minister said that no one is compelled to accept this as being the standard, but let it be hoped that the object of manufacturers will be to have as large a proportion as possible of their goods up to the standard that will qualify for the standard mark. If it was generally accepted that a manufacturer would make use of the facilities given by the institute to have all his goods up to that standard then, undoubtedly, Senator McGuire would be right in stating that there may be a financial impact because of that. I do not think it could be so to a very great extent.

Normally, on building work, the architect has the right to have materials tested at the expense of the contractor. That, naturally, goes on to the price of the completed job. The position now is that the institute can test these materials on payment of a fee. Alternatively, they may test without payment of a fee. The net result should be no increase or a comparatively small increase in the cost of the finished article.

I am entirely in agreement with Senator Douglas that the public as a whole should be encouraged to buy the article that has on it the standard mark because they would then be certain that they are getting a first-class article. I want to make it clear that the standards of which I have particular knowledge are very high standards. The second advantage would be that, if there is a demand for the article that has the standard mark, manufacturers will be encouraged to put their whole endeavour into producing as large a percentage as possible of standard mark articles. I welcome the Bill and wish it god-speed. I commend it particularly to the building industry.

Mr. O'Donnell

When this Bill was before us on a previous occasion I asked the Minister if any research of importance had taken place recently and the Minister referred me to the report of the institute. Would it be wrong of me to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware if any research of importance has taken place recently, particularly in regard to commodities based on native raw materials, and if any results of importance have been achieved?

We are voting in this Bill a certain sum of money. I do not think it is enough. The sum should be greater.

A particular commodity that was up to a standard was given a standard mark. In this ever-changing world, values change constantly. Are there corresponding changes in the qualifications for a standard mark? To-day a manufacturer may produce an excellent article which is worthy of the standard mark because of its quality. To-morrow new methods of production may be discovered. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if the institute are on the qui vive in regard to new production methods?

I deplore the niggardliness of the sum that we are voting for this important aspect of industrial life. It is necessary to publicise the standard mark so as to create confidence in Irish goods. Irish manufacturers generally welcome the standard mark. They have not used it to the extent that I would like it to be used, but they do welcome it because it will give the public a guarantee of excellence and may, to some extent, give a guarantee of price, where price maintenance is associated with a particular article. The amount of money provided is far too small. Greater expenditure on projects of this nature would be justified.

Pádraig Ághas

Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Rúnaí Parlaiminte. An bhfuil comhartha ceirde ag dul leis n gcaighdeán? Is tuigthe dhom go bhfuil earraí á ndéanamh ins an tSeapáin agus go bhfuil siad á ndíol i Meiriceá mar bhréidín Dhún na nGall. Deirtear liom nach bhfuil aon ghléas againn chun stop a chur leis sin. Sa chéad dul síos ba cheart comhartha ceirde a bheith ann agus ní dóigh liom gur leor sin. Ba cheart fógraíocht a dhéanamh, go mór mhór i Meiriceá, agus an scéal a mhíniú do na daoine ansin. Má deintear é sin, cuirfear stop leis an stuif ón tSeapáin atá ag lot an mhargaidh i Meiriceá le haghaidh bréidín Dhún na nGall.

Rúnaí Parlaiminte an Taoisigh (Donnchadh Ó Briain)

Níl ionamsa ach sop in ionad scuaibe. Is oth liom nach féidir leis an dTánaiste bheith anso chun freagra a thabhairt ar na pointí a luaigh na Seanadóirí ins an díospóireacht agus an chaint a rinneadar ar an 5ú Céim.

Tógfaidh mé an cheist go ndearna An Senadóir Pádraig Ághas tagairt di. Tuigim go bhfuil comhartha ceirde ag dul leis an gcaighdeán. Má tá bréidín breige aca ghá dhíol i Meiriceá níl fhios agam conas stop a chur leis sin. Tá sé deacair stop do chur le mimhacántacht den tsórt sin in aon áit ina ndeintear é. Fiú amháin má tá sé ar súil ins an tír seo, tá sé deacair teacht suas leis, uaireannta. Is dócha nach bhfuil an Roinn Tionscail agus Tráchtála ná an tAire dall ar an droch-obair sin atá ag déanamh dochair don bhréidín sin as Dun na nGall go bhfuil clú air ar fud an domhain. Cuirfear an tagairt a rinne an Seanadóir Ághas don cheist seo fé bhráid an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála.

Senator McGuire raised a question that he had already ventilated in his speech on the Second Reading. I can do no better than refer him to the reply which the Minister gave in concluding the debate on the Second Reading. He suggested then that the question of price maintenance and price rings, to which Senator McGuire again referred this evening, were not relevant to any discussion on any part of this Bill. That would apply, I think, generally to the point that Senator McGuire was so insistent on developing.

With regard to the points mentioned by Senator Douglas, both the parent Act of 1946 and the changes that will be brought about by the enactment of the present measure are all intended to benefit our industries, our industrialists and our manufacturers and to induce them to make more use of the machinery that is made available to them under this Industrial Research and Standards legislation. One would hope that, as a result of this legislation, there will be complete co-operation between the manufacturers and the institute.

Senator Douglas paid a tribute in his remarks to the work of the institute so far, and referred to the courtesy and consideration always given by the institute in its contacts with manufacturers.

Senator Hearne referred to certain aspects of this legislation and he gave the specific example of the building industry. Again, that is only one of the industries that can with advantage be helped by contact with the institute set up under the 1946 Act.

Senator O'Donnell asked again whether any special research was being carried out in regard to the more extended use of native raw materials— at least, that is what I understood him to refer to. The only reply I can give to him is the reply given by the Minister on the Second Reading when he said that information on the results of the work being done every year is made available in the annual report of the institute. I am sure that any research of that nature that takes place will be made known to the public through that report when the time comes. One would naturally expect that any opportunities for research of that kind that offer would be gladly availed of and carried out by the institute. I can also assure him that the institute is always on the qui vive in regard to new methods to be recommended to manufacturers, and so forth.

The attitude of the Seanad generally and of all the speakers gave an indication that this Bill is welcomed and that the changes that have been made in the parent Act will be of much assistance in the work of the institute.

I should like to express gratitude on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce—who cannot be here, as I explained—for the way in which the Seanad has received this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.