Can the Minister say in what circumstances he expects that a subsidy is to be given to the company?
Industrial Alcohol (No. 2) Bill, 1938—Money Resolution. - Industrial Alcohol (No. 2) Bill, 1938—Committee.
Sections 1 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
I do not expect that a subsidy will be called for, but it is considered desirable that this section should be inserted. It may happen some year, say, if there was a complete failure of the potato crop, or some other circumstance, which would upset the whole working of the company, that it might involve the payment, temporarily, of some subsidy to carry over that period. In the ordinary course no subsidy is contemplated.
Surely if there was such a thing in this country as a complete failure of the potato crop, or an economic situation like that, the Minister could seek the decision of Parliament as to the advisability of assisting the company.
No subsidy can be paid without an estimate being brought in, and the amount voted by the Oireachtas. It cannot be done without the consent of the Dáil.
Are we, with a type of indication we get as to the purpose of the Bill, to legislate for the possible complete failure of the potato crop?
No.
Will the Minister say what we are doing, when seeking to establish a company in the very favourable position this one is in, when the Minister for Finance is able to get 5 per cent. almost guaranteed for the use of the capital put into it, and with that rosy guarantee the House is asked to pass legislation enabling the same Minister to pay a subsidy to the company?
The Deputy knows quite well that a measure of this kind, if pro perly drafted, would provide for every possible contingency that might arise. We have always endeavoured to produce a complete Bill so that subsequent amendment would not be necessary. That is why there are a couple of provisions in the Bill to meet a number of contingencies that might, but probably never will, arise. When I mentioned a possibility, I merely did so as an illustration, as in the course of time, as this factory will, no doubt, go on for many years, circumstances might arise which necessitated such a course. It is desirable to have a legal provision, so that amending legislation would not be required, but no money will be available without coming before the Dáil.
The Minister's idea of making complete arrangements for a company like this one, that is to bring a great many benefits to the country, is that these legislative arrangements would not be complete without this section, even after a time during which the State has put a couple of hundred thousand pounds into it that we are not going to get back. We are told this legislation will not be complete unless the Minister for Finance has power to subsidise the company. It is being set on its feet as a business concern, and the prospect is held out, after the Minister for Industry and Commerce has spent a couple of hundred thousand pounds carrying out experiments supervised by his Department, that the company set up will be asked to do this work in an armchair manner, and, when he considers that the circumstances arise, it will get a sudsidy.
On the contrary, I said that I did not anticipate a situation will arise at all which will involve payment of subsidy by the Minister for Finance.
Question put and declared carried.
Sections 21 to 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Question proposed: "That Section 30 stand part of the Bill."
Is there any particular reason for leaving out the word "consolidation" in line 5, page 11?
We had the word "consolidation" in the original draft, but an amendment was moved in the last Dáil to delete it, because I was informed that the Land Clauses Acts affected the legal description of these measures. I may say that when the Bill was before the Dáil previously a point concerning the phraseology of it was raised by Deputy Costello and I undertook to consult the law officers of the Government about it. As I have done so, I would not like the section to pass without informing the House. Deputy Costello queried the necessity for sub-section 4, but I am advised that without that sub-section the legal operations would remain indefinite, and that the sub-section has not the effect of preventing a court of law from inquiring into the orders that may be made under that section. That question has already been debated in Great Britain and there has been a decision of the House of Lords given on that matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 31 to 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.
I move amendment No. 1:—
1. Before the section to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for the company or any officer of the company to disclose to any person other than another officer of the company the contents or any part of the contents of a return made by a distributor under the immediately preceding section.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) In this section the expression "officer of the company" includes any director of the company.
(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) of this section shall apply to any disclosure for the purposes of—
(a) sub-section (6) of the immediately preceding section, or
(b) legal proceedings taken or proposed to be taken under the said immediately preceding section.
I would like, first of all, to refer to the alteration in the second and third lines of sub-section (1), which reads as follows:—
"Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for the company or any officer of the company to disclose to any person other than another officer of the company the contents or any part of the contents of a return made by a distributor under the immediately preceding section."
The section is being inserted at the request of the petrol distributors. Under present circumstances, of course, they are protected against the disclosure of these returns by the law governing Government Departments but they expressed the fear that the same law would not apply in the case of this company and, therefore, it is necessary to make in the case of the company the provision that any of these returns shall be kept confidential by the officers of the company.
I would like to ask the Minister if it is the intention in any way to attempt to control the quantitative distribution of the mixture by any distributor or is he concerned simply to see that the percentage of industrial alcohol will be mixed into whatever quantity is distributed by any distributor?
We have power under other sections to prescribe the mixture. I mean, we have power to require the persons getting the alcohol to mix it in a certain percentage with petrol before offering it for sale. I do not know if that is the point the Deputy is on.
No. The point I am on is, is it the intention to control in any way the quantity of such alcohol that may be received for mixture by any distributor? Is it the intention to interfere in any way with the total amount of the mixture that any distributor may distribute?
No. The total quantity of alcohol will be given to these distributors in proportion to their clearances from bond, so that they will each get a corresponding similar amount. The Minister may prescribe that whatever quantity of industrial alcohol each distributor gets must be mixed with a fixed quantity of petrol so that there will be a spirit which will have industrial alcohol and petrol in a fixed proportion and that is the spirit which that company must sell under a name which may be fixed.
Does the Minister anticipate that in that machinery there is anything that may prevent a distributor distributing the amount that he would wish to distribute and that he had a market for?
No.
He will not be prevented? His quantitative distribution will not in any way be affected by the machinery for mixing, provided that he meets the Minister's requirements in the matter of mixing?
No. If the Deputy contemplates that this machinery may operate to prevent one distributor increasing his total sales as against another, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent him.
Arising on the amendment, I would like to be satisfied that this is not an attempt to establish an Official Secrets Act—a new Official Secrets Act—relating to industry. I am perturbed about this because, notwithstanding the assurance the Minister has given us that there will be no necessity for subsidies or anything like that at any particular time or that it will be only in very unique circumstances that that will arise, I am afraid that this particular amendment will be used not for the purpose that is stated here but for other purposes; to prevent public representatives even getting information as to the actions of the company. You could have the position, as in Great Britain at the moment, if a Deputy gets information as to the activities of the company and he wants to make his case, that he may be brought before the House or before some tribunal to show cause as to why he would not be prosecuted for an offence under this section. I think this is an attempt by the Minister to bring the Official Secrets Act into industry and that it will cover, to a certain extent at any rate, if not to a great extent, inefficiency and improper working. It will mean that this company can sit down in their armchairs and do as little or as much as they desire. I would like the Minister to assure us that that is not so.
I think if the Deputy reads the amendment in relation to Section 42, to which it obviously refers, he will see there are no grounds for his fears. Section 42 requires every distributor to make a return stating the quantity of mineral hydrocarbon light oils cleared by him during the period commencing on the first day of July, 1936, and ending immediately before the commencement of the appointed month. There is provision for subsequent returns by distributors as to their clearances from bond. That is information concerning the business of those distributors which they would not wish to get into the hands of their competitors. They are protected when they give that information to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Official Secrets Act and the ordinary practice of the Department prevent that information being disclosed to anybody, but they expressed the fear that they had not got the same protection when they gave that information to officers of the company. The officers of the company must have that information to operate this portion of the Act, but there was nothing which definitely prohibited them from disclosing that information to anybody else. Therefore, this sub-section is inserted to make it clear that any information obtained as a result of a return of that kind made by a private company concerning its own business will not be disclosed. That is the sole purpose of the sub-section. It relates only to such returns.
Question put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To delete sub-sections (1) and (2) and substitute the following two sub-sections:—
(1) On and after the appointed day the company may, whenever and so often as it thinks fit, by order (in this Part of this Act referred to as an allocation order) do, with the consent of the Minister, the following things, that is to say:—
(a) fix a specified quantity of industrial alcohol to be the allottable amount for the purposes of such order;
(b) allot the allottable amount amongst distributors in such proportions as the company thinks proper.
(2) Whenever the company makes an allocation order the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the company shall make, in respect of each distributor to whom a quantity of industrial alcohol has been allotted by such allocation order, an order (in this Part of this Act referred to as a sale order) requiring such distributor to do the following things, that is to say:—
(i) to purchase from the company, at a price (to be specified in such sale order) calculated at the rate per gallon for the time being fixed by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, for the purposes of this section, the quantity of industrial alcohol so allotted to him,
(ii) to pay to the company such price within seven days after the date of the service of such sale order on him,
(iii) to accept delivery of the said quantity at the premises of the company specified in such sale order at such time or times as may be specified in such sale order;
(b) the company shall upon the making of such sale order serve such order on such distributor.
This is to change the form of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 43.
Question put and agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
3. In sub-section (3), page 17, to delete lines 20, 21, and 22, and substitute the words "the industrial alcohol specified in such order at the price specified in such order and to deliver such," and in line 30, to delete the words "so far as the same relate to such distributor".—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 44.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before the section to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) It shall not be lawful for the company or any officer of the company—
(a) to disclose the contents of an allocation order to any person other than another officer of the company or the Minister, or
(b) to disclose the contents of a sale order (except for the purposes of any legal proceedings taken or proposed to be taken in relation thereto) to any person, other than the distributor to whom such sale order relates or another officer of the company or the Minister.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) In this section the expression "officer of the company" includes any director of the company.
The purpose of this amendment is the same as that of amendment No. 1. It is to prevent the giving of information by an officer of the company concerning the allocations made of industrial alcohol to any distributor. One amendment is consequential on the other, because anyone who would know the allocation could easily work out the quantities cleared from bond by the same person.
Amendment agreed to.
New section inserted accordingly.
Section 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 45, when this Bill was before the House on the last occasion, I raised the point with the Minister as to whether the supply of industrial alcohol would be consistent throughout the year, or whether there would be variations in the mixture according to the production. The petrol companies have indicated that they are now distributing the mixture. Are there sufficient stocks in hands to maintain the mixture at a consistent percentage from now on?
I cannot inform the Deputy as to the position at the moment. I assume they did not commence to mix until they had sufficient stocks to carry them to the period when manufacture will commence again in the next season. The allocation, I take it, will be such as to assure a uniform supply all the year round.
What is the position with regard to regulations of this particular kind? What percentage mixture is ordered by the Minister?
There is no percentage fixed at the moment.
What percentage is being operated?
Fifteen per cent.
Over the whole lot?
No. A new fuel has been offered for sale which contains 15 per cent. of alcohol. Pure petrol is offered for sale as well. Only a very limited quantity of that new fuel can be made available on the present production, or even on the maximum production. There will be only a comparatively small production of the total fuel which will take the form of this blend. This power is taken in the Bill more for the purpose of preventing a blend being offered which might be unsuitable rather than in the expectation that the power will have to be used. It is assumed the distributors will endeavour to blend it in such a way as to get the best results. In case that should not happen, it is desirable to have the power to fix the percentage.
The blend is not dearer than ordinary petrol?
I understand that it is cheaper, but I cannot say for certain.
Has the Minister been able to establish that it will remain an even quality mixture?
I stated already that the highest grade motor fuel known consists of a mixture of petrol, industrial alcohol and benzol.
Will it remain consistent, or will it go to the bottom?
No.
I was anxious to know if there was any necessity to reblend.
Is the increased price charged against the total spirit sold in the country?
The increase will be charged against the total spirit sold in the country—that is true. So far as I know, they are selling the blended spirit at the same price as ordinary petrol. I had some intimation that some companies may sell the blend at a lower price. I do not know if that is the intention. It is a matter for themselves to decide.
On the future position, the Minister indicated that, according to the productivity of the factories on the 11th May last, the total production of the blend should amount approximately to 1,000,000 gallons per annum. We face the prospect of 1,000,000 gallons of industrial alcohol being used to replace one of the 40 million gallons that are, approximately, being used at the present time. If we mix 1,000,000 gallons at 3/- with 39,000,000 gallons at the price at which petrol distributors may be expected to get petrol—that is, 4d. import price and 8d. tax, making 1/- in all—the price of the 40,000,000 gallons of the mixture will go up a halfpenny a gallon. Does the Minister agree with that?
I do not think so.
The Minister will find, if he works on the system of arithmetic that we were using when we were working out 3/- a gallon on petrol, a halfpenny a gallon will be the increase. That means that when we are using 1,000,000 gallons under an order issued by the Minister, motor users in the country will pay £33,330 a year more than they were paying. That is one side of the question. On the revenue side of the question the Minister loses 1,000,000 eightpences. In other words, he loses £34,000, which must be made up in some kind of way by taxation.
My calculation is about one-fifth of a penny per gallon on the total sum.
In actual fact petrol did rise a halfpenny a gallon in this country and it did not increase in England.
And it went down a halfpenny a gallon since.
It also went down a halfpenny a gallon in England. Petrol is a halfpenny more here than it is in England. It always has been dearer here, but now it is another halfpenny.
As against that, there was always a margin of one penny a gallon and it is now only a halfpenny.
I would like to give the Minister the benefit of the better system of arithmetic. If the Minister takes his 39 gallons at 12 pence a gallon with one gallon at 36 pence. He will find the total amount is 544 pence for 40 gallons and it works out at 12.6 pence per gallon as against the 12 pence per gallon that was paid before. I am taking the 6 pence as one halfpenny. You have the road-users paying for the change.
The Deputy is leaving certain factors out of account. As regards the price paid for petrol, some portion represents the purchase price at the port; then there is the tax and the cost of distribution—that would be the same in the case of the alcohol as in the case of the petrol.
If there is anything in the Minister's argument at all, it is going to cost more than a halfpenny a gallon. I would ask the Minister to agree that motor users, on the pure arithmetic, the same kind of purity that the 3/- a gallon was actually worked out on, are going to pay £33,000 more in the year.
The petrol companies increased their price by one halfpenny per gallon, but that increase more than compensated for the additional cost of the alcohol.
So we have the fact that the increased cost which would have gone on if the factories had been in full production has gone on even though they were not in anything like full production.
It is impossible to say whether the price of petrol has been a fair price or not. When in opposition in this House I advocated an inquiry into the price of petrol because I was not sure that the price that the companies were charging was a fair one. Nobody can say with certainty precisely all the factors that go to determine the price of petrol. There have been many fluctuations in the price and it is very hard to say what precisely the price ought to be at any given time.
The Minister can take it from me if the distributor of petrol had been getting his supply at 1/- a gallon and if he is asked by the Minister to take one gallon of the new stuff at 3/- a gallon and mix it with the other stuff at 1/- a gallon, that between himself and the person who retails it or however the distribution of the loss is borne, there is going to be a loss of something over a halfpenny a gallon on every gallon that is sold. The Minister may be insisting that working on that scale he can sell petrol at 1/8.
The Deputy is working on a consumption of 40,000,000 gallons.
I am working only on the increased cost per gallon to the user. If you take 40,000,000 gallons and you take your 1,000,000 gallons of alcohol and mix it with either 30,000,000 gallons or 20,000,000 gallons or spread it over the whole it does not matter. The increased cost will have to be borne by the consumer. It is related to the whole cost. So that between the £33,000 to be paid immediately between the car owners and the distributors and the loss of £84,000 for revenue you have £117,000.
The Deputy takes only two factors into account—the price of the petrol and the tax. What about the balance?
That is extra. That does not interfere with the calculation.
Unless the Deputy's assumption is wrong, the only thing he can be certain of is that the tax is 8d. He does not know the price of the petrol or the cost to the distributor when he has got to retail it. Nobody can say that for certain except the accountants.
Whether it is 1/- or 1/2 or 1/3, my argument holds.
The Minister said that the present mixture is only 15 per cent. I would point out to the Minister that there is not enough alcohol produced to give a mixture of 15 per cent.
It is not intended that it should.
I understand that the companies were to take the preparation from July 1st. Have any steps been taken by the petrol companies to take the 15 per cent.?
What the Deputy says is not correct. As I understand it, the alcohol would be mixed with petrol at not lower than 15 per cent. When the factories go to the general public they will find the same reception for the alcohol as the producers found in Great Britain. There the consumption went from 1,000,000 in one year to 9,000,000 gallons.
In that case, then, can the Minister say what was the purpose of the advertisement?
I do not know to what advertisement the Deputy is referring.
What is the mystery behind the suggestion that this is being sold at a lower price?
I do not say that it is being sold at a lower price, because that would imply that it is an inferior spirit. The spirit that is being sold in Britain is selling on its merits. There is no compulsion on anybody to buy it, and yet the sale increased from 1,000,000 gallons in 1936 to 9,000,000 gallons in 1937.
Section 45 put and agreed to.
Sections 46 to 49, inclusive, and the Schedule and Title, put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
If the House is agreeable, I will take it now.
Very well.
Before we leave that point, I did not understand what the Minister said about fair wages. In other Bills of a nature similar to this there is a section about fair wages.
I do not think so. This company shall operate as a private company, and not be subject to Government supervision. We are providing that the existing contracts will be binding upon the new company.
Why was provision made in the articles of association of the sugar company for a fair wage clause and not in this Bill?
I am not sure that that is so. In any case, it has not prevented disputes arising in the sugar company.
I think the Minister ought to give some assurance that he will have this fair wage clause.
I will give the Deputy an assurance that fair wages will certainly be paid, and that the company will be bound by the ordinary fair wage regulations.
The Minister knows that under its powers this company can make roads and railroads.
The company will not make roads or railroads.
Provision for it is made in the Bill.
There is nothing in these articles of association about making roads.
Has not the company authority to carry out such work as is necessary for promoting the welfare of the factories? If the company thinks it is necessary to carry out certain work in order to facilitate its proper development will it not make roads? We want to make sure that in any work which it undertakes under the protection of legislation passed by this House, the company will be obliged by statute to observe fair conditions of labour. The Minister has put that section into the Sugar Bill and into the Electricity Supply Bill and other Government Bills. If the Minister will not undertake to do that I ask that the Report Stage be deferred.
Well, I am prepared to argue that. The company will carry out its contracts with its employees, but I am not going to put the company into the position that they will be subject to political pressure in regard to their working. I am not going to put them in the position that they can be subject to political pressure in that regard.
There is no question of political pressure involved. Paying decent wages is not a political issue at all; it is a moral issue. Every company that operates ought to pay its employees decent rates of wages——
I agree.
——if there never was a political Party in existence. There has been, in fact, a strike in this connection, or a couple of strikes.
Does the Deputy know what it was about?
I do. I know that a number of workers felt that they were being very badly treated in the matter of wages and conditions, and that some of the people who were engaged in supervising them did not use the choicest of language when it came to addressing Irish workers. The Minister knows perfectly well that these are factors that cause strikes. What I want is that an obligation should be imposed by statute on this company to pay decent wages, and if the Minister will undertake to do that by introducing an amendment in the Seanad, such as will give expression to his intentions and desires, as orally expressed here, well and good; but if he does not undertake to do that, then we propose to introduce an amendment on the Report Stage.
Actually the Report Stage is being discussed now. The Bill was reported with amendments.
I am prepared to postpone the Report Stage until to-morrow if the Deputy desires, but I want it to be clear where I stand. I want to say that the company, in my opinion, should pay fair wages. On that, the Deputy and I are completely at one, but on the question of making it a statutory obligation, which means, I take it, that the whole matter can be raised here when any dispute arises, I am going to resist to the limit. I think it would be unfair to the company to put them in a position that an ordinary privately-owned company would not be in—in other words, they should be able to make their contracts freely and without political pressure. What does the Deputy mean by a statutory obligation?
By a statutory obligation I mean an obligation which charges the company to recognise certain factors in fixing wages. There is no obligation in this Bill to do that. Would the Minister agree to incorporate in this Bill some of the provisions, just and necessary to the circumstances of this factory, such as were embodied in, say, the Bacon Bill?
I am not familiar with the Bacon Bill. I think that a company of this kind should be left free to make its contracts in the ordinary way, and it is particularly in regard to the strike experience of this undertaking that I say that. For instance, there was a strike in the factory at Ballina because the local transport workers' leader said that the carting of sand and so on should be done by horse and cart instead of by motor lorry, and things like that, which we could not tolerate, as the Deputy knows.
What about Donegal?
These are the kind of things the strikes have been about, but there have been no disputes regarding rates of wages. The strikes have resulted from local attempts to dictate matters.
Has there been no strike in the Donegal factory?
That was a question whether some local person or the manager of the company was going to decide who were to be employed.
Well, I know that some of the members of the Minister's own Party said that they sympathised with the people concerned. That may not be evidence of responsibility, but it is true.
The question is that the Bill be received for final consideration.
I want a ruling, Sir, on the question as to whether we are dealing with the Report Stage.
If we postpone the Report Stage until to-morrow the Deputy can introduce any amendment he likes.
I understood that you were now proposing to come to the Report Stage.
We can take the Report Stage to-morrow.
Report Stage ordered for to-morrow.