Last night, I was discussing the siting of the factory and pointing out that personally I had nothing against the fact that the factory was in Arklow. At the same time, I was directing the attention of the House to the fact that the Money Resolution in connection with this Bill is for a sum in the neighbourhood of £6 million for a factory which will employ 300 people and that it did seem to me that it was rather an excessive State expenditure for the purpose of employing only 300 people. I was also stressing the fact that I had information that the nitrogen plant itself was not really an economic one in that it was too small but I suggested that it was conceivably possible that it was the intention of the Government to have such plant, even though it might not be as economic as a larger one, so that they could employ a greater personnel, have more operatives at work there, than would be the case if they had more up-to-date and modern plant.
This is a new factory in connection with which there is an opportunity to have all conceivable modern appliances. In the competitive world that lies ahead, particularly in the European sphere, in the event of our not having the Common Market—which appears to be somewhat doubtful now —we shall certainly have some form of extended free trade area or free trade association, I wonder would it be possible at a later date to change this plant without imposing a very heavy charge on the company concerned ? It may very well happen that if we have to negotiate a trade agreement—as assuredly we shall—possibly in conjunction with other countries who are already manufacturing nitrogenous fertilisers on an extensive scale, it may be necessary for us or for the firm to keep itself competitive by changing this nitrogenous plant and even though it may not give the same amount of employment as, obviously, it is the Government's intention it should give, it may still be necessary to do this in order to remain a viable concern.
The Minister did not deal very extensively with the envisaged free trade area or free trade association or, shall we put it, the liberalisation of trade here in association with other countries, whether in the Common Market or under a wider free trade agreement embracing the EFTA countries, the Six and ourselves, perhaps. He brushed it aside by saying that dumping was prohibited within the Treaty of Rome. The position still is that we have made application for full membership of the Common Market and leading Government spokesmen have assured us we are going to get into it in the very near future. Perhaps they have had reason to change their minds in the past few days—I do not know. Within that market, it seems to me we shall have to compete fully with up-to-date plants.
I stressed last night that a very big British firm had closed down production of nitrogenous fertilisers because they found themselves priced out of the market by up-to-date conditions prevailing in continental fertiliser plants. Has the Minister fully considered that? I think the House is entitled to some further statement on account of the vast expenditure involved here on the changes that will arise in the event of the free trade area or Common Market membership materialising. Does he envisage that we shall face seriously competitive conditions? Does he consider that with the small nitrogenous plant at present envisaged, we can remain viable? Are we able to face these bigger firms in Europe and their competition and if not, what will be our position in the free trade area? In all the trade discussions that have so far taken place of which I have any knowledge, existing trade facilities are always taken into account and might we find ourselves in the position that we could not impose any tariff, even though it was a free trade area? I want the Minister to deal with that position in relation to the wider free trade area of the Economic Community. Should we still be able to consider ourselves viable within Europe?
This is an important matter that concerns us not only as legislators voting money here and giving the Government permission to go ahead with a programme about which some of us have considerable reservations and doubts, but also it affects the firm itself and the 300 operatives who will be working there. There is no use in starting a nitrogenous factory and giving this employment, expending this money which is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers or out of the pockets of those who have invested money in national loans and so on, unless it can be made an economic proposition. The House should get a full assurance on that point and the Minister should make a full statement on the implications of this factory in relation to the conditions of industrial development we all envisage within Europe on the basis of a wider free trade area.
This factory is sited in Arklow which has suffered considerably as a result of the closing of the mines and the consequent unemployment in the area. I have nothing against Arklow but it does not seem to be the best distribution centre in the State. Although the Minister has not actually given costings, certain agricultural organisations associated with the production of nitrogenous fertilisers have suggested certain figures of costings and I gather that the price delivered to the farmer will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £11 odd. Does the Minister feel that it is possible to distribute these fertilisers from Arklow throughout the State to every farmer in the country at the same price? From what I know of CIE efficiency and the prices charged— and CIE will be the principal means of transport unless it is envisaged to send the fertiliser by sea from Arklow to Killybegs to supply Donegal—I wonder can it be delivered at the same price to farmers in Donegal and West Cork or in the more distant parts.
The House would need a statement on that aspect of the matter to re-assure the agricultural community that they are not, as Deputy Desmond aptly put it, paying a land tax on fertilisers. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the points I have raised. I have had advice on many of the technical matters that I have mentioned but it does not necessarily follow that technical advice is always correct. I hope the scheme will be a success as there is so much money involved in it and I shall give it my support, such as it is, with the reservations I have mentioned.