I move: "To delete sub-section 4." My intention in putting down this amendment is to get a clear definition from the Minister of the use of the term "working capital." As I understand the Bill, it is not allowable to guarantee loans which will be used for the purpose of working capital. In my opinion that is rather a hindrance and it would be a mistake to retain it in the Bill.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - TRADE LOANS (GUARANTEE) BILL.—THIRD STAGE.
(4) No guarantee shall be given under this section in respect of a loan the proceeds or any part of the proceeds of which are intended to be used as working capital.
I do not know if I am expected to give a definition of working capital now. I should rather think that the definition which occurs later defining the purposes for which expenditure is allowed—"capital undertaking" means an undertaking involving capital expenditure—would have met the point. The Deputy is right in assuming that, for instance, the paying of wages will not be considered a proper object for which a guarantee may be given. That depends on a very obvious reason, that if you provide or secure money for, say, the payment of wages, you are guaranteeing expenditure which is not balanced by any tangible asset, and that is the sole and almost only reason why working capital is excluded from the provisions of the Bill in this section. It would include, as well as payment of wages, the payment of certain charges which would arise immediately in the promotion of an undertaking of this sort and for which a return would have to be awaited until the undertaking was in being. There is no tangible asset which the State afterwards could seize to make good the guarantee.
The explanation of the Minister rather baffles me. In regard to money which may be advanced for expenditure on the putting up of a new building, that expenditure will in the main it is alleged go in the form of wages; perhaps half would be in the form of wages. Is it suggested that there is a tangible asset in the expenditure of that money, but that there is no tangible asset in the expenditure on wages—in making clocks, for instance? I think the explanation requires a little amplification.
I have already stated that there would be something to represent it, but that something would not give money, and there would be no return for a certain time. Once the loan is guaranteed you must have assets which are tangible and which will secure the guarantee.
I may have misunderstood the intentions of the Bill. As yet I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. It seems to me, in a great many cases, that working capital is the essential thing. People may have all the other necessary things, but the thing they require to give employment would be working capital. There are fixed assets, such as premises, plant, etc., which would be a guarantee for the safety of the loan. Take, for instance, the case of co-operative creameries. One of the ideas which we had was that co-operative creameries could secure under this Bill money to buy motor-lorries, which would have the effect of giving extra employment, perhaps reduce the cost of living, and that money would be advanced for that purpose. I may have misunderstood the purport of this Bill, but that is my idea in putting down this amendment.
A definite point has now been raised—the purchase of a motor-lorry in connection with a co-operative creamery. A motor-lorry represents something tangible. That is different; that is not payment of wages. A motor-lorry is a very definite object, and money to buy it would properly come under Section 1, sub-section (4).
Because of the definition between fixed and working capital I thought an expenditure of that kind would be included in working capital. It is an asset which will disappear in a short time. There are many other cases where working capital might be necessary, or part of it, in connection with the payment of wages.
I have not any statement from the Deputy of the type of working capital which it would be desirable to guarantee under this Bill. If he gives me some such instance we can consider it.
The Minister seems to me, in his explanation, on the one hand to narrow the intentions of the Bill, and on the other to broaden its intentions. I would have thought that the provision of motor lorries for creameries might easily be classified as working capital and that money under this section would not be advanced for such a purpose, particularly as such an item will not be fixed and could be the property of the creamery to-day and some other body's property to-morrow. When the Minister says, on the other hand, that money will not be advanced under this section for the payment of wages for work which is specific, in the carrying out of this undertaking, when there is concrete evidence that labour has been expended and something tangible is available— that seems to me to warrant an advance under the Bill. A manufacturer or creamery proprietor or co-operative association may go into the market and may buy a motor lorry which may not involve any expense in this country in the way of wages. The Minister suggests that that would be an expenditure against which a loan might be granted under the Bill, but that if the creamery started out to build a new wing to their factory and sought an advance for the wages to build that wing, that advance could not be given under the Bill. That seems to me to be a contradiction, and if that is the intention an explanation is desirable.
Again you see this difficulty of definition arising here, the difficulty of defining in a specific way in a proposal or legislation, matters which are in their interpretation going to be left to the Advisory Committee; but I may say this—it has been the feature of any and every Act of this type that no guarantee shall be given in respect of a loan the proceeds, or any part of which proceeds, are to be used as working capital. I can conceive a case in which the provision of a motor lorry would be definitely included in the category of working capital.
Take the point dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture on the Second Reading: If the milk suppliers decided in order to diminish the middle-men's profits, in the provision of milk, to combine in an association to provide the milk more cheaply, I should say motor lorries for that purpose would come within the category of working expenses or working capital. There is another point, a semi-philosophical point, raised by Deputy Johnson. I do not want to get into an argument as to whether an article when produced represents so much capital or so much labour. I am not trying to argue by any side wind against capital value and the apportionment of that, but if there is an instance put up in which anybody would be hampered and in which at the same time the State could get ample security for the guarantee given, then consideration would have to be given in that case. Let me take the case put up by Deputy Heffernan—a co-operative creamery which requires money for working expenses. Now, that co-operative creamery would have some assets, according to him—assets in the way of plant and capital outlay. Then it can raise money itself for the provision of working expenses, and it is proper for that Association, or whoever is in charge, to raise money in the normal way through a bank. The bank can take these risks. The State cannot take the risks that a bank could. The State must have ample security to cover all advances, and that security must be in the way of tangible assets. No loan can be made for the payment of wages, although the finished article, as Deputy Johnson says, represents some fraction of capital and some fraction of labour, but on the actual payments out for that particular purpose there would be no return for a considerable period, and within that period the concern may go smash. The State must have security, and the only way you can get money for the promotion of sound schemes under this Bill will be by having the guarantee limited to capital expenditure.
I think the case the Minister is making for this sub-section might be quite conclusive, but when he instances the proposal under Section 2 to establish milk-selling agencies, and suggests that an association of milk providers might under this be allowed to provide material out of the loan, I am still a bit doubtful as to the explanations of this reference to no guarantee and the reference to working capital. The reference to working capital applies only to Section 1. I think that is so, that is to say, the loans are to be applied in a way which is calculated to promote employment in the Saorstát. Taking the provision of motor lorries, I would have thought that the intention of this sub-section would be that the manufacturer of motor lorries who saw a market would be in a position to obtain a loan under this for the manufacture of motor lorries, and, consequently, to increase employment, but that if another firm under this same section desired a loan for the purchase of motor lorries in the conduct of its own business, then that would not be allowed under this section, inasmuch as that would, in fact, be working capital to carry on the business, and with the further object of the distribution of commodities. I think it is desirable that there should be a sub-section of this kind inserted, but I am afraid that the explanation the Minister has given would rather mislead applicants for loans, if it is to be thought that the provision of motor lorries for the conduct of their distributing trade would not be considered as working capital, and, therefore, that they may borrow under this section money to provide motor lorries, which is not in the ordinary course calculated to promote employment.
I did definitely state when the question of the motor lorry was raised that I considered it came rather under Section 2. Let us be quite clear. Section 2 has a sub-section with the phrase "subject to the limitations imposed by this section, and subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance." That also occurs in Section 1. I am not clear as to what will be excluded under Section 2, but I am clear as to what will be excluded under Section 1. If Deputy Johnson proposes to insert a new sub-section, I do not think it would be desirable.
I am supporting this section, and the sub-section, I think, is necessary.
Are you supporting the amendment to delete the sub-section?
No, I am not, but I think the Minister's arguments defeat the purposes of the sub-section, and I think his arguments tended to support the case for the removal of this sub-section.
I must confess I am getting more confused, because I can conceive of a case where working capital would be essential. It might be possible for a person to get the working capital from a bank, but it might not be possible to get it on the guarantee given by the Ministry. I am not sure that the retention of the words "working capital" is advisable. I think some substitute should be used giving a clearer definition of "working capital."
Have you got it?
No, I think you can produce it. I think it is necessary to define the difference between fixed and working capital.
The bankers will tell you.
They may give their definition, but it may not be a definition suitable to the man who wants capital. It seems to me that the intention of the Bill is to give capital to a man who has practically no capital, and where the security will be very flimsy, whereas if he were advanced the money as working capital he would have the plant as a security which is there all the time. Take the case of a woollen manufacturer. Times are bad, and they have not the advantage of protection. He may have an excellent factory and plant, but he may be short of working capital, and the banks may be reluctant to advance it to him. That manufacturer then goes to the Minister, gets that guarantee, and gets the money at a lower rate of interest. The Minister has the factory all the time as a security. I think it is wrong to prevent such a man taking advantage of this Act. My view may not be the intention that was present in drafting the Bill, but that is the idea I have got from the Bill.
If the amendment is put and defeated now it cannot be moved on the next Stage. Would the Deputy withdraw the amendment to see if he could arrive at a definition with the Minister?
If I had any asurance from the Minister that he would give the matter more consideration that is all I want.
We have the phrases "working capital" and "capital undertaking," defined in a later section. If Deputy Heffernan feels he can get some phrase which will allow the guaranteeing of money for purposes he has vaguely indicated, and that he is obliged to put it in a setting which would frighten both the Advisory Committee and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and certainly the Minister for Finance, from giving any guarantee or any loan, I cannot help him; but if he thinks he can get some phrase that would fulfil the object he has in view, he had better bring it along. This phrase in sub-section (4) is used in every Bill of the sort, and until we get good reason why it should not be in we do not intend to remove it.
That is what I am afraid of, that because this phrase has been used in other Bills it has been accepted by the Minister, but I am willing to withdraw my amendment if the Minister would allow me to put forward a definition at a later stage.
I do not intend bringing forward any further definition.
The Minister cannot prevent a Deputy from bringing forward a definition.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
On the Second Reading the Minister invited me to put down an amendment to this section stating qualifications for the Advisory Committee, somewhat similar to the qualifications laid down for Panel Members in the Railways Bill. I am not quite clear as to what are the qualifications for the Panel. I am not sure if this Panel, like Julius Caesar, has not been murdered in the Seanad, but the Minister, however, is capable of resurrecting it. I have come to the conclusion that I will not put down any amendment, for though the composition of the Advisory Committee is vitally important, unless the Advisory Committee is a good one, the Bill will fail hopelessly to carry out the object it intends to achieve. By laying down some qualifications, that there must be one banker, one businessman, one farmer, and so on, we shall unduly circumscribe the choice of the Minister. It is not so much the professional qualifications of the man appointed on the Committee as his own personal individual character that will count. The Minister should try to get men of caution and men of vision, men who are cautious in their control of public money, and at the same time with sufficient vision to take a risk if the ends involved are important enough. These men are not easy to find, and you cannot put down a cut and dried description of qualifications for these individuals. I for one am content to leave the matter in the hands of the Ministers named in the Bill. I am sure the nominees of the Minister for Finance will possess caution, and that the nominees of the Minister for Industry and Commerce will possess vision. I do hope they will possess the qualifications that are demanded, and will possess courage which, at any rate in this instance, is not a bad substitute.
But it must never be forgotten that unless the Advisory Committee is a success, the Bill cannot be a success, and, therefore, I hope that the appointments will be made with care, and will be announced. There is nothing in the section as to the announcing of the names of the Advisory Committee. I think their names should be announced in the Iris Oifigiúil, because it will give confidence to the banks and the public if they know that wild-cat schemes will not be proceeded with under this measure.
I would like to ask the Minister if he would give a little fuller information than he already has done in regard to the effect of this section when it is considered together with the Trades Facilities Act that is the law in Great Britain. I wish to ask that specifically because of certain sentences that he used in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. He said: "We want to create an investing public, and more than that, we want to bring here the creators and directors of industry. Of these we have some, but not enough." I take it that he means, by bringing here the creators and directors of industry, to attract within these shores those who are not here now, but who are known as the creators and directors of industry. That is the meaning that is suggested to me by the obvious interpretation of the words. In regard to those men, they already have at their disposal a very considerable sum of money for the establishment of industries, even in the Saorstát. The Minister knows very well that the Trade Facilities Act in Great Britain is an Act under which people can get very great advances of money, even though the works they establish are not in Great Britain. Only about three or four months ago a very large factory was established, as the Minister will know, in Poland, and the moneys available for that were advanced under the British Trade Facilities Act.
took the Chair.
I feel, and the Minister probably has it in mind, in regard to industries that are established here, that it is a matter of right feeling that the moneys guaranteed should be sought under this Bill rather than under any other Bill. But we cannot expect that those thoughts will be common to the type of person whom he describes in his introducing words; that is, the people whom he desires to bring here, the creators and directors of industry. There is a very large sum of money available under the British Trade Facilities Act, and, as the returns show, almost the greater part of it—a very considerable part of it anyhow, has been taken and developed, some in India, some in Africa, and some in various parts of the Continent of Europe. There is another part on which I would like to ask for his somewhat fuller opinion, and it deals more or less with the same kind of subject. These are the words of the section: "In connection with the purchase of articles manufactured or produced in Saorstát Eireann required for the purposes of any undertaking." That is, moneys wanted for capital purposes, those moneys to be guaranteed only if they are expended on articles manufactured or produced in the Free State. Well, the majority of moneys so required would be in respect of machinery and matters of that kind, where these articles are not produced here, but where the articles are produced in Great Britain or any other country, but where, if they were purchased from Great Britain, the British Act would be available for persons purchasing machinery in Great Britain for the erection of factories in Dublin, such machinery not being produced in the Free State at all.
There is a sort of no man's land between the two Bills, and I would like to have some indication from the Minister as to that sphere of administration. It is not likely that much money would be required for a capital undertaking, or machinery, for example, under this Bill. But the Trade Facilities Act, although not repealed—it has passed out by the passage of time—was an Act in the Free State. It was part of the legislation taken over under Article 73 of the Constitution, and whether that be much to the issue or not, whether it be or be not germane in view of the fact that it has passed out of administration, it nevertheless remains that its purpose can be made effectual, and might easily be made effectual by companies starting here desiring to buy their machinery in Great Britain and seeking all the opportunities proferred by the Trade Facilities Act. The same companies might look, for example, to this Bill for the erection of buildings in Ireland by Irish labour for a guarantee for that part of the capital, and for the machinery that went into the building look to the British Trade Facilities Act for the guarantee of that part of the capital. That is quite possible under this Bill and the British Act, and I think the matter does require some attention to fix some kind of boundary line between the two administrations.
It does not strike me that there is very much difficulty in the matter that Deputy Figgis has raised. As I read this section, it practically takes for the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, after consultation with an Advisory Committee, the powers which are daily exercised by banks, to determine how capital should be expended, and under the proposition that Deputy Figgis has made it seems to me quite clear that if a loan which is guaranteed is to be applied for the purposes of one portion of an undertaking, namely, the erection of a building, the remainder of the capital might be drawn from anywhere—that the purposes of the section would be served and employment assisted by the erection of that building. There is just one little point that may not require the assurance that I ask for, but it is just as well to have it. In the parallel section of the British Act there was inserted a proviso that none of these moneys should be expended for munitions of war. That has not been put into this Bill, but I hope not with the expectation that new industries should be established within the Saorstát of a warlike kind, to promote the manufacture of munitions of war. I would take it that the Minister had not got any such purpose in his mind when he omitted that particular phrase from the Bill. I would like him to say in a general way what he has in mind. It is not for him to pass the responsibility on to the Advisory Committee. It is he who is going to determine the policy, after consultation with the Advisory Committee, and I would like him to say whether he has in mind the using of the £750,000 in a few big industries in the hope that they will become very valuable, or, as I said on the Second Reading stage, stimulate the development of a large number of smaller industries in different parts of the country, because I want him to bear in mind that the problem of unemployment is not confined to the larger cities. It is very widespread, and I think the true policy for the country would be to absorb people from all parts of the country into concerns of a reproductive and development character, and I think that it would be advantageous if he would give us some indication of what is in his mind as to the use that will be made of these powers that will be granted to him.
With regard to what Deputy Cooper mentioned in connection with the Advisory Committee, and his application on Second Reading that either the names of those to be appointed should be given, or else that the qualifications desirable in those to be appointed should at least be outlined, I am glad to observe that he has at least withdrawn his suggestion that the names be given. It will be a task of some difficulty to get even a small committee such as will inspire the confidence that Deputy Cooper thinks desirable, and that I myself think desirable. I think there would be great and undue interference with the liberty that should be accorded both to the Minister for Finance and to myself in getting persons to act on that Committee if we were obliged to set out rigid qualifications. The qualifications of the ordinary members of the railway tribunal have disappeared in the Seanad, that is to say, as a clause in the Bill, but that does not mean that the qualifications set out in the particular clause will not be regarded by the Executive Council in advising the Governor-General to make appointments. That is a different matter. It would be most undesirable here, I agree with the Deputy, to set down a statement of the qualifications required.
I think Deputy Cooper went even so far as to impugn the Minister for Finance for his caution in certain respects. I do not think he need be at all worried that the people recommended will be people who are likely to let through their hands any schemes of a wild-cat nature. I think his suggestion a wise one, that the names should be published prominently in the Official Gazette, or if it can be done before the Dáil rises, that the names should be announced to the Dáil. Deputy Figgis made a matter of much complexity of what was in reality a very simple thing. We have here a Bill which states that on certain conditions being met certain guarantees are to be given. It is immaterial to us whether the same firm has in England received guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act for purposes connected with Ireland. If they have a double guarantee it does not make any difference to us so long as we have our loan guaranteed in a certain way. It makes no difference whatsoever. So far am I from wishing to draw a boundary line between the two administrations that I do not care how much they overlap so long as I am sure that our security is not impaired by any guarantee given by the British Government under their Trade Facilities Act. There is no difficulty, and the only use of the argument is to show Deputy Figgis's dexterity in extricating himself from a difficulty into which he got a propos of this Bill. Deputy Johnson has drawn attention to the fact that one phrase has disappeared—“munitions of war.” It is not the only phrase. In the British Act there is a phrase for lending money to any Government, etc. That has been cut out, not because we wanted to preclude any Government from applying for loans, although it might read ambiguously as regards Ireland, but because we did not think that any foreign Government was likely to apply here. It was only so much verbiage and was not going to lend any additional weight to the Bill.
The "munitions of war" phrase has been left out. It does not mean that we are going to embark on a process of lending money to undertakings that may set themselves up for the production of those munitions. It must be remembered that the production of certain things useful in making munitions of war are often a by-product of other forms of industry. It would be undesirable to cut out certain things which seem desirable simply because they were some by-product useful in the making of munitions. As to the other question by Deputy Johnson, it is not so much whether the money is spent on one or two big schemes, or on a large number. It is not so much what I would like to see happening but what I think will happen. There are schemes that have been rolling in within the last couple of months. It strikes me as absolutely certain that this money will be expended over a multiplicity of small schemes rather than on a number of large ones. That is desirable on account of the reasoning of Deputy Johnson: that unemployment is not a city problem merely, but a problem for the whole country, and for that reason it will be desirable to have schemes not concentrated round one spot but to have many small undertakings. I do not think there was any other point raised on this section which has been left unanswered except Deputy Heffernan's amendment, which, I presume, we will see in another form later.
It is not quite so simple as the Minister would suggest. Let me put it in this practical, concrete way. Supposing a manufacturer to-morrow desires to establish a factory in Dublin. He could make avail of this Bill within the purview of the Committee's restricted capacity, that restriction being £750,000. But that manufacturer could do much more. He could go to the British Trades Facilities Act for every penny of that money, because it has been by the last Imperial Conference made operative in Ireland and other of the so-called Dominions. That means, if the manufacturer wanted to-morrow to establish a factory here, he could use not only the £750,000 of this Bill, but he could use the much larger resources available under the British Trade Facilities Act for purposes in Ireland, and these have been extended so far to £190,000,000. When one sees a Bill in those words, those being the exact words of another piece of legislation that also applies over the Free State, then I am asking if the intention is to try to expel, so far as is possible, for patriotic or other reasons, the operation of the British Act in this country.
That question answers itself. There is nothing in the Bill to show that there is any intention to expel or to prevent anyone from taking advantage of the Act on the other side.
Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) If the Minister for Industry and Commerce, after consultation with an advisory committee nominated by him in conjunction with the Minister for Finance for the purposes of this section, is satisfied that any loan proposed to be raised by any public authority of any association (corporate or unincorporate) of producers, or of consumers, or of producers and consumers is calculated to promote a reduction in the retail prices in Saorstát Eireann of essential commodities, the Minister for Industry and Commerce may, either—
(a) grant the loan upon such terms and conditions as to time and manner of repayment, rate of interest, security, and other matters whatsoever as he shall think proper, or
(b) guarantee in such manner and on such terms and conditions as he shall think proper the repayment of the principal of such loan and the payment of the interest thereon or the repayment of such principal or the payment of such interest,
subject to the limitations imposed by this section and subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance.
(2) The aggregate capital amount of the loans granted under this section shall not exceed the sum of fifty thousand pounds, and the total aggregate capital amount of loans granted under this section and of loans in respect of which guarantees are given (whether as to principal and interest or as to principal only or as to interest only) under this section shall not exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
(3) No loan shall be granted or guarantee given under this section after the expiration of twelve months from the passing of this Act.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), line 50, after the word "committee" to insert the words "in the case of an undertaking which is mainly of an industrial character composed of members the majority of whom are engaged in industrial occupations, or who have special knowledge of that nature, and in the case of undertakings which are mainly of an agricultural character composed of members the majority of whom are engaged in agricultural occupations, or who have special knowledge of that nature."
This matter of the Advisory Committee has been discussed fairly fully, but my intention in putting down this amendment was that if necessary two Advisory Committees should be appointed, or if not two distinct Advisory Committees, that when the Advisory Committee came to deal with a matter which was predominantly agricultural that the Minister would see that the majority of the members of that committee were men with agricultural knowledge, or a special agricultural training.
The argument is obvious that when we are going to deal with agricultural matters, the only people who understand those matters are naturally the agriculturists; similarly, when we are going to deal with industrial matters, the people who understand those matters best are the industrialists. Since the introduction of the Bill I have been rather afraid that the outlook of the Minister and the Government is too much centred round the metropolis. Too much attention is devoted to Dublin, and I believe that in the actual working out of the measure the advantage will be derived by business men living close to Dublin, and the guarantees will be given to business men residing in or near the city.
Perhaps I misjudge the Minister in that regard; from what I heard him say to-day, I am inclined to think I have misjudged him. I would like to emphasise that there are men in the country who, if they got the opportunity, would prove themselves at least as good and as up-to-date and as anxious to advance as business men in the city. It would be well that the Minister would show us that he is prepared to take a broad view in this matter, and that it is his intention to make this measure apply to all classes, and that no special favours will be permitted.
We should have some specific indication that the Advisory Committee will have an agricultural representative, so that his advice will be of assistance when agricultural matters are under discussion, and that there will be an industrial representative to deal with industrial matters. I am particularly interested in agriculture, and I would like if the Minister would see his way to give the industry representation on the Committee.
I am not responsible for the viewpoint which Deputy Heffernan may adopt with regard to my outlook on certain matters, or the Government's outlook. I object to this amendment, because I believe it would make the machinery too cumbersome. The functions to be performed by the Advisory Committee are very similar to those to be performed by the directors of any ordinary bank, where they advise having their main interest centred in the financial aspect rather than in any other aspect that may be put before them; they do not view it from the expert agricultural point of view, or any other expert point of view save that of finance. Agricultural and industrial experience will not be overlooked in the formation of the committee, but the main thing to be achieved is that we should get on the Advisory Committee persons who will regard any proposals put up from the financial end; persons who will be able to value the prospects, and to do that they will have to have knowledge and experience of agricultural and commercial matters.
The great point on which choice will proceed will be rather their financial outlook, and how far they will be regarded as good judges, from the point of view, primarily, that is taken into account in the case of a director or directors of a bank. The amendment is objectionable, because it would limit us and tie our hands very much. It is going to be difficult to get even a small committee of the expert type required. They have to be experts in a particular way. A certain burden of work will be put upon them, and it is going to be very difficult to get people of the type we desire, who will undertake the work that will necessarily fall on them under an Act such as this.
I think that Deputy Heffernan's fears are groundless. When the Housing Act was going through we heard a great deal about the need of houses in Dublin. Yet, all the houses that have been built under the Act have been built in the country. The country districts are quite as alive to the advantages to be gained under this measure as any other districts, and they are probably even more alive to those advantages than the town districts are. I believe the Deputy's fears are groundless. Even if the Minister were to accept the principle—I do not think he could quite accept the amendment—it would not be so very helpful.
Portion of the amendment reads:
"The majority of whom are engaged in agricultural occupations or who have special knowledge of that nature." That is not a special knowledge of agriculture, but of agricultural occupations. That would make a cowboy or a ploughman eligible, and a lot of people who might be desirable would not be eligible. Take one instance Mr. Justice Wylie would, I presume not be held to be engaged in an agricultural occupation; yet he has a knowledge of agriculture, and if I were buying a horse I would sooner take Mr. Justice Wylie with me than Deputy Heffernan. I think Mr. Justice Wylie has more knowledge of that peculiar kind.
There are certain county court judges and lots of other people in the country who might not exactly be described as having an agricultural occupation, but who, nevertheless, have a deep knowledge of agricultural matters. One of the candidates for our division in the last election, though manager of an industrial undertaking in Dublin, is also a very large farmer; I refer to Mr. David Barry. Farming is more or less implicit in Irish life. A large number of people in other occupations have either come from a farm or have carried on farm work in their spare time. An amendment of this nature is hardly, in the circumstances, suitable, and therefore I hope that Deputy Heffernan will not press it.
Can those people you refer to, do agriculture successfully in their spare time?
I want to support the idea underlying Deputy Heffernan's amendment. I do not support exactly the wording of the amendment. I believe, however, there is doubt for presupposing that in connection with this Advisory Committee, however capable it might be, and however suitable might be the schemes which would emanate in the minds of the rural population, and which might come before the Committee, it is possible that there would be a certain slight bias in their minds, and there would be no possibility whatever that our schemes would come within the meaning of the measure, unless we have something like a definite assurance that both agricultural and industrial interests will be given representation. Otherwise we would unquestionably have to wonder whether the Act would be available for us in the way in which it ought to be.
Deputy Cooper makes reference to the Housing Bill. If the Housing Bill had not been extended during the Committee Stage and made apply to the rural areas, our enthusiasm in the country to build houses would not avail us very much if the grant were not available. The same would apply to this measure, and we would like the Minister to give us some indication that agricultural and industrial interests will be represented.
Both the arguments of the Minister and Deputy Cooper only convince me that my amendment is correct. The Minister has in view a certain type of business man who, in addition to his business knowledge, would know something of agriculture. He has in view a type of financier who looks at farming purely from the financial point of view. Our business will be looked at, as it has been in the past, purely from the point of view of the financier and of the business man who deal with agriculture in only a theoretical way. We are in close touch with the agricultural world, and we know that farmers frequently get advice from a business man who possibly makes a side-line of farming and who tries to make it a paying proposition. Very often it is not a paying proposition, and he carries on the farming at the expense of his other business. These are the men who give advice as to their undertakings; but in my opinion all they can do is to theorise on what should be done, and they have little knowledge of the actual conditions with which the farmer has to contend. I want to avoid placing men of that type on this committee. Amongst the farmers we have men who are both practical farmers and capable business men, and they have a sound knowledge of affairs. Farming interests are not assisted as they should be in this country. The reason is that the men who handle finance are not in sufficiently close touch with the farmers and have not sufficient sympathy with the outlook of the farming community.
The same statement has been made in England, and has given rise to controversy, and it is only to avoid that statement being repeated, and to avoid statements which may be made that this Bill will not deal primarily with the interests of the farmers, but will deal principally with business from the outlook of the city man or the industrialist, that I suggest this amendment. I still think that my amendment is reasonable and I still think that in a country which is predominantly agricultural we have a right to expect that our industry would get representation in a matter of this kind.
I understand the amendment is being pressed. It reads: "In the case of an undertaking which is mainly of an industrial character composed of members the majority of whom are engaged in industrial occupations," and it goes on to say: "and in the case of undertakings which are mainly of an agricultural nature composed of men the majority of whom are engaged in agricultural occupations." Now take the type of committee that I see being set up under this Bill. I had originally thought of two committees, say, numbering five each. Thinking over the matter since, and casting around for a proper type of personnel for the committees, I have come to the conclusion that the best type of committee will be one of three set up under Section 1, strengthened by the addition of one man for the purposes connected with Section 2.
It is now suggested to me that I should take a clause of this sort, that the majority of the committee of three shall be composed of members engaged in industrial occupations, while I presume the additional member for the purposes indicated under Section 2 would be a man engaged in an agricultural undertaking. That would require some definition. Would the manager of a co-operative agricultural society be a person engaged in an agricultural undertaking? There would be a certain amount of difficulty in having these matters decided, and who is to decide them? If we have this outlook in favour of the town as against the country. we are not going to have the same difficulty in getting men who at some twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth remove would have some dealing with agriculture, and in the same way we could describe him as having a special knowledge of that nature, so that he could go on the committee. But if the amendment is to be worded in a rigid form so as to preclude us from doing all sorts of absurd and unnecessary things it would not serve its purpose.
The Deputy believes that the farming community would provide men of considerable business experience and men who are practical farmers. If he sends me on some of these names I will be very much obliged to him. These were the names I wanted to get for consideration. The big difficulty is to get four men who would fill the bill properly. I do not know if Deputy Heffernan is going to persevere with this amendment in its present form, or what he intends to do with it. But let him consider, having regard to what I said, that the proposal now is—I do not say it has assumed any concrete form, but it is in my mind, and it is what my mind was tending to—a Committee of three for Section 1, strengthened by one additional member for the purposes of Section 2.
It strikes me that this section has neither to do with industry in the sense that has been referred to, nor with agriculture in the sense that has been referred to. It has to do with distribution of trade, merchanting, if you like; and neither industrialists as such, nor agriculturalists as such, have any special claim to representation on that Committee. It is obviously a section having for its object the reduction of retailed prices. It has nothing to do with production either on the industrial side or on the agricultural side.
This raises another point that I think should be considered. We dodged round it some time, but we know that it exists, and we might as well face it now. The Minister has informed us that the Committee that will be set up to administer Section 1 will, with the addition of one other, be brought in to administer Section 2. That is to say, the kind of Committee which would be chosen for administering Section 1 would be, presumably one having a majority of persons not familiar with large manufacturing enterprises. Section 2, as Deputy Johnson has rightly pointed out, would have for its primary purpose the question of distribution, and I imagine might be so used, and in my judgment should be so used for co-operative distribution. We know it to be the case that there are manufacturers who are convincedly prejudiced against the co-operative distribution. We do know in one or two cases in co-operative creameries that they have been unable to get machinery on wholesale terms, and that there has been generally a feeling in regard to some of them, that that kind of business is not to be encouraged. It would be quite easy, I think, to get a Committee under Section 1 that would not look upon the primary purpose of Section 2 with quite so favourable attention, and for that reason there is a case to be made out for it. I suggest that the Minister would consider that the Advisory Committees under it would be separated from one another.
Deputy Figgis has mentioned the point which I omitted to mention. There is undoubtedly a prejudice in the minds of certain classes of business men, manufacturers, and, I might say, of bankers, against co-operative undertakings, and my view is that we intend to avail of this section largely in conjunction with co-operation. I am looking at it largely from the farmers' point of view. In dealing with co-operative undertakings, we have frequently found ourselves up against rings of merchants, men who will not give us goods at wholesale prices, but who are willing to sell to the ordinary retail shops at wholesale prices. If business men of that kind happen to get on the committee they will be prejudiced against co-operative undertakings. I have great regard for the Minister's ability and knowledge, but there are a good many things of that kind which he may not know about. It was largely with that in my mind that I suggested this amendment. I am willing to withdraw it if the Minister will give some kind of undertaking that on this committee which he proposes to set up, he would put instead of one additional member, two additional members, and that he would see that these two men were men with an interest in, and special knowledge of, agriculture, and that they were men who were not biased in their point of view when dealing with co-operative undertakings.
If the Minister accepts Deputy Heffernan's amendment, where is the room for the trader? This section, as I understand it, is largely a trading section. There are to be three industrial representatives, and in addition two agricultural representatives. Where, then, I ask, does the trader come in as distinct from the agriculturist on the one hand, and the industrialist on the other? So far as Deputy Figgis's speech went, I must confess that I do not see what his arguments had to do with the amendment that is under discussion. If you take Deputy Heffernan's amendment, there are many industries, and it is impossible to say whether they are industrial or agricultural, but at the same time you propose to make it mandatory on the Minister, and if he does not act he breaks the law, to appoint a majority of either agriculturists or industrialists. I am rather surprised to see one of the farmers' Deputies drawing this rather rigid distinction between agriculture and ordinary industry, because I understood that agriculture is the main industry in this country, that it represents 75 per cent. of the wealth produced in the country.
We quite appreciate the Minister's difficulty in dealing with this matter. I do not agree with Deputy O'Sullivan that there is no connection between the speech delivered by Deputy Figgis and the amendment proposed by Deputy Heffernan. Deputy Figgis's remarks were made in reply to the Minister's statement and to the constitution of the committee under this section of the Bill. Deputy Figgis's remarks were in this direction: that there ought to be distinction between the committee that would be set up under Section 1 of the Bill and the committee that would operate under Section 2. We admit, of course, that the Minister is experiencing a real difficulty in the setting up of this committee. Deputy O'Sullivan has made the point that agriculture represents seventy-five per cent. of the wealth produced in this country. I say that if agriculture represented ninety-nine per cent. of the industry of the country, and that the committee was ninety-nine per cent. anti-agricultural, the agricultural community could not expect to derive very much benefit from the Bill when passed into law. We are not definitely tied to the proposition that the men appointed on this committee must be in the word and in the letter agriculturists. We recognise that the traders' point of view must also be represented, but our point is that the trader and the agriculturist might, if proper precautions were not taken, be one and the same. That is what Deputy Heffernan seeks to guard against in his amendment. I do not agree with Deputy O'Sullivan that the same type of man should represent both interests. I repeat that I do not see how the same committee can operate under Section 1 and Section 2 of the Bill. There is no doubt, whatever, that if you have the same committee to work the two sections difficulties will certainly arise. I cannot see eye to eye with the Minister in that, that a committee of three, with one advisory member, will be sufficient, and will be capable of dealing impartially with the administration of the whole Bill irrespective of what particular section or class in the community demands consideration from it. I think it would be desirable if the Minister could state that he would reconsider the whole matter and introduce something on the Report Stage that might be generally acceptable.
In reply to the points put forward by Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Baxter, if they can put something before me more acceptable on the Report Stage it will come up then for consideration, but again I am standing by Clause 2 in the Bill until I see some better proposal put up to me. The amendment that has been proposed does not better the section, but rather disimproves it. The amendment disimproves the section and makes the matter considerably more difficult than I am going to experience at the moment in getting a proper team for the purposes of this Bill. The argument has been used as if non-agricultural men were anti-agricultural. There is a big difference between the two, I should say, and I presume that even Deputies on the Farmers' Benches will admit even that much.
It happens very often that they are anti-agricultural.
Am I to take it then that the agricultural representatives believe that they so repel the ordinary person that any person not completely in their grip is definitely anti-agricultural? Is that their attitude, I ask?
I am sorry to say that it is very often the case.
We are not speaking now of ordinary people, but of men who have to be sanctioned and approved of for a particular purpose by two supposedly responsible Ministers. We are not talking about people in the lump, but of people picked for a certain purpose. Is it to be assumed that certain people are going to be picked to work this Bill and that they are going to be picked simply to see that the machinery proposed to be set up under it does not work? That, to me, argues a very peculiar outlook. It amounts to this, that I am going to go to all the trouble of preparing this Bill and of putting it through the Dáil, and that then I am going to put its working into the hands of people who will see that nothing comes off.
There is no intention of imputing any such deliberate motive to the Minister, or a deliberate bias against agriculture, but as the section stands we do not see how it is going to work.
Look at the amendment from another aspect: I am not getting three or four men to come together for the purpose of saying to them: "Here is so much money for you to distribute and see what you can do with it." I am giving them very definite terms of reference. The first is, is the expenditure of this money likely to promote employment in the Saorstát, and secondly, is the guarantee likely to reduce in the Saorstát the retail prices of essential commodities? That is what they have to consider. Remember I am not getting a committee of three for the purpose of Section 1, who are going to be industrialists, that is, according to the arguments put forward from the Farmers' Benches, anti-agriculturists. I am going, as I said originally, to get people to act on this committee whose first duty will be to evaluate the financial prospects of any proposals put before them, and the security that the Government will have to meet liabilities incurred under the loan or under the guarantee. In passing, I might say that there is a tremendous amount of fuss here about a matter that really amounts to nothing. I do not think that the Farmers' representatives here can say that they have been so handled in this House that they have any justification for assuming that a committee of four established for a particular purpose is to be selected in order to down the interests of agriculturists. There are very definite terms of reference given to those who will be appointed on the committee. I imagine that the men on the committee will be of the type corresponding to directors of a bank. The first thing to be guaranteed is security, and my difficulty is to get men who will have that type of experience and qualifications under that heading, and who will also be anxious to promote employment, and, secondly, who will try to bring about a reduction of retail prices in essential commodities in the Saorstát. If I were simply to get men who were going to set up two rival factions on the committee, I willingly agree then that I ought to make the committee one with fifty members on it, because then I am sure we would get a certain amount of amusement and enjoyment from its proceedings. My object is to get a reasonable committee composed of a small number of men, three or four at the outside. The suggestion has been made, and it is worthy of consideration that there might be two committees, one in respect of Section 1, and a second committee for the purposes of Section 2. I may say that I have no objection to two committees. I have not a decided preference for one committee strengthened for the purposes of Section 2 of the Bill, rather than of having two separate committees. The difficulty is to get a suitable personnel for both committees. If Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Baxter will supply me with a sufficient number of names to constitute two separate committees, one for the purposes of Section 1 of the Bill, and one to operate Section 2, then that is a matter that is not beyond further consideration. I am not prepared, however, to accept this amendment, which proposes to tie my hands as to the selection of a certain type of people with certain qualifications.
If the Minister really wants a small committee, judging from experience, I think he would be wise to fix the number at 100, with a quorum of 20. There was the suggestion of Deputy Heffernan in his endeavour to save the Minister from his sub-conscious mind, that two members might get added to the committee in respect of this section instead of one, and I think there is something to be said for that because a committee of five is much more manageable than a committee of four. In the case of a committee of four, when there is a division, the chairman has a vote, and then if the committee is divided equally he has the further power of his casting vote. I think there is good reason for having a committee of five instead of four. I do hope that in submitting the names Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Baxter will not send up the names of all the farmers who understand business conditions, because in that case there would be none left to work the co-operative schemes.
The Minister proves himself to be a very effective debater, but whether that debating skill is always quite so just in one's attitude towards an amendment is another point. It is easy to score off an amendment without meeting the point it purports to suggest. I treated this amendment not rigidly in the terms of its wording. Deputy Cooper, sometime ago, made a suggestion that had already been developed in a Dáil previous to this, namely, that the official draughtsman might be made available for the purposes of Deputies, but whether that is done or not so long as the general purport of an amendment is clear, that general purport can be addressed and the details of it not pressed. I suggest that the Minister has not taken the right attitude when he says "I am standing over the section, and unless I can see an amendment that is water-tight in every sense I will not accept it."
As a matter of fact I did not say that.
No, but the Minister did say that he stood over the section and he criticised the amendment in some detail. If I am not addressing myself to the amendment I am addressing myself to the section. What I am saying is that the purposes of Section 1 and Section 2 do not coincide, and not only do they not coincide but it is quite possible to find a committee for the administration of Section 1 that, because of its fitness for that administration, might create the greatest prejudice and hostility for the proper and efficient administration of Section 2. I know a case that I could give to the Minister of a certain employer in Ireland to-day who manufactures a certain agricultural implement, and because he was relying for the bigger part of his business on the traders, although he believed that co-operative enterprise was one that should be encouraged in the country, nevertheless he undertook that he would supply none of his implements to any co-operative society. It is easy to see how prejudice like that might exist, and to see how the purposes of Sections 1 and 2 could in one particular mind be antagonistic to one another, although persons in whom that antagonism existed might be proper persons to appoint on the committees for the administration of Section 1.
I am not going to appoint any person who may be a proper man for Section 1, taken by itself, and who is not a proper man for both purposes. That is not going to be met, at any rate, by amendment. I have not said that I am standing for this proposal until I see a water-tight amendment. I say there is my proposal. Give me something better and I will accept it. I say the amendment does not better it; it disimproves it. Deputy Cooper makes a different point, and I want to be clear on this. When I talk of a committee of three, to be strengthened by one, that is only my present attitude towards it; that may change; it has changed between the time of the Second Reading and now, when I was of a mind that two committees would be necessary and two committees of, say, five each. It is only because in the interval I have considered the difficulty with regard to 10 men who will come forward voluntarily and shoulder the burden put upon them under the Bill that the suggestion of a committee to be strengthened by two instead of by one is considered a useful suggestion. If one is not considered necessary and we get two, and two would meet the point mentioned by Deputy Cooper, that is to prevent the chairman from having to exercise a casting vote in the case of a tie, that certainly can be done. If I get the proper names and I get the proper people, then a committee of three for the purpose of Section 1 and five for Section 2 will certainly be appointed.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Before the section is passed I rise for the purpose of getting some information, not perhaps a precise definition of what is in the Minister's mind as essential commodities. At present we have no indication of what essential commodities are. I suppose the Minister for Agriculture knows, but the Minister for Agriculture's idea is not to be found anywhere in the Bill. But apart from that, Executive Ministers may be essential commodities, and extern Ministers luxuries. There should be some machinery to say what are essential commodities and what are not. I think the Minister ought to have established some machinery for this purpose and ought also to have some machinery for the purpose of adding things to the list if necessary, because I have no doubt the first list will be found rather incomplete. I would ask the Minister to consider that and to see if he could not on Report Stage bring something forward to make this more complete. There are many things in which there is a great deal of profiteering on the border line of what some people may call essential commodities and some may not. Take vegetables, for instance. I would say that vegetables are an essential. It is common knowledge that in the Dublin Market there is a great deal of profiteering in vegetables. There are a great many people who will say that workmen do not want vegetables, and there are a great many people who refuse vegetables because they do not consider them essential except, perhaps, potatoes. There will be confusion on this question, and it is very desirable to have some method of determining what are essential commodities. The second question that I want to raise arouses more attention, and that is the question of stout or porter. Men working on the quays will tell you that that is essential, and that as their work is so hard and creates so much thirst unless a man has one pint at least a day he cannot do it. I do not think it will be disputed that the price of stout is very high. I received from a constituent a leaflet containing the words "Guinness' Stout our speciality, per bottle 5d." and there follows an address of a firm in Manchester which I will communicate to any Deputy who desires it. The price of stout in Dublin is 8d. per bottle, and that requires explanation. I do not know why the constituent sent the communication to me and why he did not send it to someone like the Minister for External Affairs or the Minister for Justice, who could do something about it. But though profiteering is very widespread, and though I do not press the Minister for a definite answer now, I would ask him to indicate the machinery by which the section can be used to lower the price of stout.
I desire to ask the Minister to give some explanation as to how he has arrived at the different sums available for Section 1 and Section 2. In my innocence, I put down an amendment whereby the sum available under Section 2 would be doubled, raised to £100,000, for the purpose of loans; and to £500,000 for the purpose of guarantees. I was unable to get that amendment passed, being informed that it was not in agreement with Section 90 of the Standing Orders. I wish to get some information at this stage, as it seems to me that there is no real reason why £750,000 should be available for guarantees, and only £250,000 for another purpose. I cannot see that one section is more important than the other. The giving of employment is of more importance than reducing the retail prices of essential commodities. I would ask the Minister if he would consider the question of increasing the amount available to £500,000 instead of £250,000.
Before the Minister replies there is one matter in subsection 3 that I wish to refer to. Does the Minister consider twelve months long enough? I can understand the anxiety to get this section working as soon as possible, but in many cases, associations of producers and consumers do not exist yet. They will have to be formed, and will have to get all the data to enable them to lay a case before the Advisory Committee. Would the Minister consider the question of extending the period to, say, the 31st December, 1925? That would mean an extension of possibly four months, beyond the twelve months. I think it would give a little better chance to people who have not yet begun to think about this, and who would bring up their schemes later. It would not delay the earlier schemes brought in, and if the money was gone it would be gone.
I would like to support Deputy Cooper's view regarding this phrase "essential commodities." There is just the possibility that the word "essential" may be taken as confining the activities of the Minister in a way that was not intended. I suggest to the Minister that he should endeavour to find some other phrase to cover what I think is his intention. "Commodities in general consumption," or words of that kind. If the word "essential," for instance, became a question for the courts, we might find difficulties as to whether what we believed to be essential would be what a judge would believe to be essential.
This question of essential commodities was raised on the Second Reading and I then suggested that it could be taken as meaning generally. I did not advance a definition. It would be taken to mean, generally, articles on which the cost of living figures are made up.
Porter is not in that.
Porter is not in that. That is why I did not want to define it and say "that is the list, and the essential commodities are to be confined to it." There are certain items which might not appear to people in the Dáil as essential, such as paraffin oil and lard. Even Deputy Cooper, I think, has expressed in another debate a preference for candles. Of course he might object to paraffin oil being substituted for candles. It is very hard to get a suitable definition, and it is a thing I can consider bringing up again on the Report Stage. I could approach the matter this way. I could schedule a list of articles and say, these may be added to by order from time to time. If it is considered more acceptable, I could have considered the phrase Deputy Johnson has suggested, as to commodities in general use, or in general consumption. The matter could be left over for the Report Stage, and I will consider the advisability of having the articles scheduled, and allowing others to be added by order, by being laid on the Table of the House or something of that nature. I presume that porter and stout would have to be added to the first list and scheduled immediately to the Bill. As to the question of time, I considered that and raised the point. I think the answer is that, it is best to proceed by some regular period, say 12 months. It is easy to extend that period. We thought it best to hurry so as to speed up people who have proposals of a likely nature. If there is any insistence on it I am not adamant on the question of time. There was a suggestion, rather, to cut it down and coincide with the end of the financial year, running from the 1st April until the 1st April next year, and thereafter for a twelve months period. I think it is better to leave the matter as it is. If necessary the time can be enlarged. Deputy Heffernan asked me how the sums were arrived at, and in his voice I again detected the old antagonism between agriculturists and industrialists, between £750,000 and £250,000. If I am asked how the sums were arrived at I would observe that it was almost a personal combat between the Minister for Finance—who is in hospital—and myself, and I think the Deputy will admit that I have won.
Can we take advantage of his absence?
I do not think that would be in my canon of sport— when a man has given way to some extent, that we should extend the time. As to why more money should be set down in Section 1 than in Section 2 that was because Section 2 is tentative. It is a section that has not been tried out in any other country. If there is any difficulty about the sums I can guarantee for the Minister for Finance, in his absence, and I think, with his consent, that if schemes of a likely nature are brought forward and exhaust the money set down, there will not be any great difficulty in having the sums enlarged. If that is the only difficulty in the Deputy's mind I can remove it.
Question: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 6.
I have not put down an amendment, but, I would like to ask the Minister, if there is any objection to adding to the statement, that is to be laid before the Oireachtas, the terms and conditions on which loans have been granted. I think it would be well that we should be informed of the terms on which loans have been granted, especially if any general principles are set out. I can understand that there may be exceptions in particular cases and peculiarities that would require, perhaps, different conditions in every case, but it seems to me that there will be, probably, some general principle applied in the granting of loans and the Oireachtas should be informed. I would ask the Minister if he would have any objection to inserting an amendment to that effect on the Report Stage.
I cannot see any objection at the moment but one may occur to me between this and the Report Stage. I see no objection at present to have the statement including the terms on which loans and guarantees are given.
It might be as well for the Minister to consult the Advisory Committee upon that matter before coming to a decision and I strongly urge him to do so.
Question: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
In this Act, the expression "capital undertaking" means an undertaking involving capital expenditure, and the expression "public authority" means any board or other body, whether corporate or unincorporate, exercising any function of central or local government or discharging any public duties in relation to public administration (whether general or local) in Saorstát Eireann.
I move the following amendment:
To add a Schedule as follows:—
Schedule referred to in Section 7:—
FAIR WAGES CLAUSE.
"The contractor shall, under a penalty of a fine or otherwise, pay rates of wages and observe hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and trade societies (or in the absence of such recognised hours and wages, those which in practice prevail amongst good employers) in the trade in the district where the work is carried out. Where there are no such wages and hours recognised or prevailing in the district, those recognised or prevailing in the nearest district in which the general industrial circumstances are similar shall be adopted. Further, the conditions of employment generally accepted in the district in the trade concerned shall be taken into account in considering how far the terms of the Fair Wages Clause are being observed. The contractor shall be prohibited from transferring or assigning, directly or indirectly, to any person or persons whatever, any portion of his contract without the written permission of the Department. Sub-letting, other than that which may be customary in the trade concerned, shall be prohibited. The contractor shall be responsible for the observance of the Fair Wages Clause by the sub-contractor.
In considering whether a contractor is complying with the terms of the Fair Wages Clause, regard shall be had to the conditions of employment generally in the contracting firm."
This amendment is put forward with a view to protecting two bodies of people—the workers who are engaged in their present employment, working on agreed rates, and the employers who have agreed to pay those rates and who are working their industries on fair terms. The proposal is to make one of the conditions, namely, what is known as a fair wages clause which has for a number of years been operating in regard to public contracts and which is necessary in regard to public contracts at present. The intention will be that the recipients of loans under this Bill should be put in the same position regarding the terms of employment in their industry as contractors of public bodies in receipt of public money are now placed in. There is danger if no such provision of this kind is made that firms may apply for loans and use such guarantees as will be given and that they will be put in a position of distinct advantage over competitors who are not applying for loans or guarantees. That would be unfair to the firms concerned. Complaints may be heard, and they are almost sure to be heard as a matter of fact, from say firm A that he is carrying on his business without any guarantee or loan while his competitor B has had the use of capital under this Bill. There may not be very much in that because, each of them probably would be placed on equal terms so far as the Minister is concerned, if each of them applied, but if one is bound to observe fair conditions and the other may be free to observe fair conditions or not as he pleases there would be a distinct handicap on the fair employer and Government funds would be available for handicapping such employer. I am not asking the Minister, nor am I asking the House to bind themselves to the actual phraseology of this new section, but I ask them to agree to the principle which I propose, that the Fair Wages Clause, which I suggest, should form the subject of a schedule, the same as the Fair Wages Clause at present in operation, and I ask the House to agree that similar conditions should be applied to any works carried out under this Bill.
I wish to support the amendment. I believe that the inclusion of a Fair Wages Clause would be a most important provision in the Bill. I think it will be generally accepted that where such a clause is in operation, particularly with public bodies, it has been conducive to settled conditions and has gone a good way to avoid disputes as well as safeguarding the interests of the workers.
In considering this amendment I hope that the Minister will also take into consideration the advisability of adding a form of words so as to make it read "the fair wages and fair work clause." It would remove the blemish which I see in this Fair Wages Clause as it stands. If he cannot consider it in that way I do not think it would be good business at all. We had better face the situation honestly and have fair work as well as fair wages. We have no objection to fair wages but we want fair work.
I was glad to hear Deputy Johnson, in supporting his own amendment, admit that there was such a thing as fair terms of agreement between employer and employee. The general inference is that the employers are sharks and that the men are downtrodden individuals. Generally speaking, my experience is that while I have no objection to a fair wages clause going in, it seems to me to be a work of supererogation as the men can very well look after themselves. Deputy Johnson, as instancing the case for fair wages, referred to the fact that loans might be applied for by, say, A and that B is working under certain terms with his employees at different wages. Surely this Bill is not going to operate in that way. If it is, it seems to me that it will probably do more harm than good. In other words, Deputy Johnson's idea is that the Government are going to provide money to start a man in an industry that is already started.
I have not suggested anything of the kind.
Then how does your instance work? Deputy Johnson referred to the fact that A was working and B started up in competition. If that is so, the Government is going to provide money to start a man in competition with someone else. I imagine that that would be misplacing Government money. I imagined that the Bill was for the purpose of providing guarantees for the raising of capital for industries of national importance. In Great Britain, for instance, it has been done and money has been advanced to build ships for foreign trade. There is a national reason for that, but there would be no national reason to bolster up somebody in competition with somebody else.
I am afraid Deputy Hewat has not been following the discussion, nor has he been following the development of work under the Trade Facilities Act in Great Britain. He has instanced shipbuilding. He would have known, had he followed the discussion that the very question which was raised by me has already been raised in respect of rival shipbuilding companies. One shipbuilding company obtains under the Trade Facilities Act a loan at a certain rate, a rate which is lower than a similar loan could have been obtained without a guarantee. One firm obtains that loan under the guarantee; another firm is not able to keep its yard going. Overhead charges have to be borne on the ordinary commercial lines, and consequently it is alleged there is a disadvantage to firm B as compared with firm A. This is not a question of starting a new man in the shipbuilding industry; the existing shipbuilders are really competing with one who is able to keep his business going by virtue of that loan under guarantee, and the other alleges he is handicapped in the matter. I am not referring to the starting of any firm in a new business, although it is quite possible and may be even very desirable under this Bill. The question of terms and fair conditions should appeal to Deputy Hewat. He knows as a matter of ordinary commercial and industrial practice that if the conditions that are ruling are generally similar then the firms are able to start on a line, but if the conditions are favourable in respect of one firm and unfavourable in respect of the other then one firm is much handicapped compared with its rival. Deputy Gorey can rest assured, of course, that the firms will have the right to employ and the right not to employ. I am not suggesting any change in this matter, and if Deputy Gorey can introduce a new Fair Wages Clause, I, for my part, would be glad to give it every consideration. If Deputy Hewat can produce that for the next Stage of the measure, I have no doubt also the Minister will be very glad to give it consideration, but I would like to have the Minister's assurance that he will accept this amendment now, or at least the principle of it.
I am not very much disposed to accept this amendment for three reasons. It is unnecessary, it is undesirable for reasons which I will indicate, and it would be very difficult to administer. Where the terms and conditions are not all right the workers will not accept them, and the scheme will not come into being. It does not put any further power or leverage into the hands of potential employers than they have to-day under the fair wages clauses. I am asked not merely to drive with this particular amendment but to get into harness with something such as Deputy Gorey proposes. In that case I am afraid there will be nothing done under the Bill during the coming twelve months or any other period. It is undesirable for many reasons to insert something in the Bill which will induce a certain amount of uncertainty as to any schemes proposed under the Bill. If you take England, which is a highly industrialised country, the application of a fair wages clause there has led to considerable difficulty and wrangling on the question of what are the conditions in adjoining districts. Here, if an enterprise is proposed in a town in which the wage conditions are those generally recognised, then obviously these wage conditions must rule the undertaking, but if you have an undertaking started in a centre which is not industrial, then you are immediately involved in a wrangle as to the conditions obtaining in that district compared with the district nearest to it. If you have a scheme which is acceptable from the point of view of the promoter and which meets with the approval of the worker, why should the setting up of such a scheme be delayed pending the interpretation of a fair wages clause of that type or of any type because there will have to be an interpretation about which there will be a certain difficulty? I need not go into any arguments as to why this should be administratively difficult. It obviously would be, and there are no benefits to be derived from it, merely from the fixing of it, commensurate with the disadvantages it would bring in its train. Any advantages it would bring will be gained in the ordinary way, from the operation of ordinary conditions and fixed wages. As to Deputy Gorey's suggestion to introduce a clause providing for a fair day's work, it would be administratively difficult and lead to great wrangling.
I am disappointed at the attitude of the Minister. I do not think it can be shown that the administration of a fair wages clause in this country has been very difficult. I have not heard that there has been any great difficulty in the matter. I would have heard it during the last three or four years if there had been any great difficulty.
The refusal to accept any such clause is, in fact, an invitation to recipients under this Bill to endeavour to break the rates of wages that are prevalent in any industry which will come under the Bill. There is only this to be relied on —the strength of the trades unions. I hope that that will be effective and thoroughly well exercised, and that it will not be necessary to try that strength. In asking the Minister to accept this clause, I do so in order to avoid the possibilities of that strength having to be tried. If firms applying for loans under this Bill know that they are to be expected to conform to the prevailing conditions of good and fair employment in the area, they will know exactly where they stand. But if they know that they may try their hands in introducing strange labour into that particular district at low rates, then, of course, it comes to the question of a tussle. If once you have given your guarantee—once you have issued your loan—then the firm concerned will be expected to start its undertaking. After that you may find that the security for your loan is less valuable than it was, or that it would have been if you had embodied a clause of this kind in the original contract. Everything will depend on the way the Minister interprets his powers, the kind of industry, and the kind of persons who are going to be assisted, and who are waiting for such opportunities as this Bill provides. Some men may not be careful or considerate of the kind of labour they will employ. It may be said that I am giving a far-fetched illustration, but I want to give an extreme illustration of the kind of thing that would be possible, except there is some security of this kind—the introduction of cheap labour, Polish. Chinese or Negro labour to do a certain job. There is nothing in the Bill now to prevent that. There may be other things. Public opinion, no doubt, would be effective, but surely it would be better that firms getting the benefit of this Bill should not be allowed to consider for a moment that anything other than the normal conditions of good, fair employment in the area concerned would be allowed. We would then have no reason to fear the introduction of cheap labour from either inside or outside the Saorstát, and I say that the Minister or the Dáil must not think that is outside the possibilities. I say, with a little knowledge of what may be in the minds of certain applicants for loans of this kind, that they may be contemplating the possibility of getting cheap labour introduced. The rejection of the principle of the amendment would simply mean that the risks will have to be taken, and the ordinary methods which might be said to be extra legal so far as the Bill is concerned, and outside the scope of the Bill, will be brought into play. You may by that reduce the security, and if a loan is granted to a firm which, thinking that there is no obligation upon it to employ labour at fair rates, enters into a business undertaking, there is resistance and obstruction in the conduct of that firm in the conditions of low pay and unfair rates. Then your security has to that extent been reduced, and we ought, if possible, to avoid that at the beginning.
With regard to the defeat of this amendment being taken as an indication to applicants to break the fair wages clause or conditions in the district, I do not think that is quite a sound argument. If there had been a fair wages clause in the proposed Bill, and the Dáil had, of its own accord defeated it, or got it removed, that would be an invitation to the applicants to cut across the ordinary fair wages in the district. If the defeat of a clause of this kind is to be regarded as an invitation to the adoption of tactics of that kind, then a certain amount of responsibility for the invitation must rest on the Deputy who brought forward this, and got it defeated. It is said that it is better to set out that applicants must conform to the conditions and wages paid in certain districts, and that applicants who bring forward certain schemes will know very well that they must conform to the wages in the district. They must, in the circumstances, conform. Otherwise, if Deputy Johnson puts it to me that an applicant can come forward, and knows that he can get wages reduced in a particular district, I think, if he pointed out these districts there may be a rush of applicants to start enterprises in these districts. He knows as well as I do that any applicant coming forward will have to conform by the very nature of things to the ordinary rate of wages in the district, but we do not want to have any clause which would have to be interpreted where the conditions are not suitable for interpretation. That may suit in a highly industralised country. On the other hand, if the money was given by way of Government loan to already existing industries where the conditions are known, then an obligation of this kind must not cause much difficulty, but in the conditions envisaged by us they would be considered a difficulty as regards the security and how it may be lessened, because proper regard is not had, in making the application, to the necessity of conforming to the fair wages clause. That is one of the things to be considered by the Advisory Committee. A scheme is to be put forward involving labour and necessitating payments. Obviously, the committee will have to look into that and see if there is any relation to the wages paid in the district. If it bears no relation, and if it can be shown that the wages are at a lower level, the man will not get much consideration from the committee. Such a scheme is not likely to be put forward, and if put forward is not likely to be passed by the committee. In the terms and conditions in which the money would be guaranteed the wages paid will have to conform to the wages in the district, and in the nature of things that will be done, but a clause such as this, which would be very difficult to interpret, and where the interpretation of it would lead to unnecessary delay, is not desirable. The difficulty of administration is a minor point, but it also has a certain weight.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 38.
Tá.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin.
Níl.
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin, Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Darrell Figgis.
- John Good.
- William Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Proinsias O Cathail.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
took the Chair.
I move:—
Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Any loan borrowed by any public authority exercising functions of local government which is granted by or the repayment of which or the interest on which is guaranteed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under this Act shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of such authority for the purpose of any enactment limiting the borrowing powers of such authority."
The effect of this amendment is that the limits on the borrowing powers of local authorities under existing enactments shall not apply to loans raised under this Bill. In the absence of such a provision any local body which had exhausted its borrowing powers would not be able to take advantage of the Bill.
This amendment is an old friend; we had it last week in the Relief of Rates Bill, and now here it is again. I protested against it then, and I am going to say again, at the risk of wearying the Dáil, that if the borrowing powers of local authorities are inadequate the way to remedy it is by extending them in a specific measure, not by putting section after section into Bill after Bill. If there is a case for extending these powers— and I believe there is—this is not the way to do it. Otherwise you will find them thinking that however they exhaust their credit it will not matter, because every Bill that empowers them to borrow will also empower them to disregard the fact that their credit is exhausted. That is not a good thing. I hope that the Government will give some specific reason: do they know of any local authority which has exhausted its credit and which is likely to take cognisance of this measure, for instance? I think it is doubtful.
I said on a former occasion when a similar matter to this was under consideration that I know of one local authority that does not stick in the mud, and has borrowed money for going ahead and putting its business on a proper footing. It is very near the limit of its borrowing powers, and if this amendment is not accepted this particular local authority that I am interested in would not be in a position to take the facilities that this Bill offers. While there may be many local authorities which do not need to exceed their borrowing powers at all, and which could take the facilities without this amendment, I would not like to see any local authority shut out because of the fact that they would not be in a position to borrow money under this Bill. Authorities which have not taken the facilities that have been offered to them in improving their position under the Local Government and other Acts will be in a position to go ahead, while people who put their townships, or whatever they were, into a proper sanitary condition, and so on, will not get the benefit that this Bill might afford. so that we should be very wary in seeing that people who might be willing to take advantage of it are not cut out.
I think local authorities got special borrowing powers to carry out specific obligations. This is in addition to all those obligations and is quite a different matter. I think it is much more satisfactory than to increase the borrowing powers. I do not agree with Deputy Cooper. I think this is the best measure to deal with this specific matter.
If Deputy Hughes can assure me that the local authority for which he speaks is going to take advantage of this Bill when it becomes an Act then I will withdraw my objection.
I am sure if there is anything to come out of it for the benefit of that district they will take advantage of it.
It is not for the benefit of the local body but for the benefit of the ratepayers, which is a different thing.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the new section stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That Sections 7 and 8 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Title stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.