Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Nov 1932

Vol. 44 No. 15

Cement (Customs Duty Undertaking) Bill, 1932—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move:

That this Bill be now read a Second Time.

When this Government came into office one of the matters to which we gave early consideration was the possibility of establishing a cement industry in Saorstát Eireann. We found that various proposals for the establishment of such an industry had been submitted from time to time by different parties to our predecessors, and by other parties. Such proposals were almost immediately submitted to us when we came into office. As we examined the matter two considerations arose, to which we had to give very careful attention. In the first place, it became clear that none of those at present engaged in the manufacture of cement here, contemplated their being able to purchase and market that cement at a price comparable to that at which cement is now imported. Consequently to adopt their proposals would have meant an increased price for cement in the Saorstát. In the second place it became clear that to establish a cement industry here would not, in itself, directly affect the unemployment position to a substantial degree.

As most Deputies are aware, the amount of employment given in the modern cement mill is remarkably small, and, particularly so, when consideration is given to the large capital investment involved. We were faced, therefore, with these two considerations: that the amount of direct employment to be given in a cement mill would be small, and that on the basis of the proposal before us, an increase of the price of cement would arise if any of these proposals were adopted. These were two considerations obviously of great importance, because it was conceivable that an increase in the price would result in a drop in sales to all building operations and public works so that more unemployment would be caused by the increased selling price than the increase of employment given in the new cement factories. We were, nevertheless, particularly anxious to secure the establishment of cement factories here. Consequently we turned our attention to the possibility of modifying some of the proposals before us, or getting new proposals that would overcome those difficulties, and which would provide comparable employment in the contemplated industry and which, at the same time, would secure that the price of cement would not be increased. We came to the conclusion that we could have achieved this objective by proceeding with the establishment of the cement industry in two stages.

We decided that the first stage should be to establish, in Saorstát Eireann, what are called grinding mills; that is, places where cement clinkers, imported into this country, would be ground and turned out as cement. The total consumption of cement in this country would permit of the establishment of three such grinding mills upon an economic basis. The employment given in connection with three such mills would be equal to, or at any rate very little less than, the employment which would be given in one cement factory for the whole process of supplying the requirements of the country.

Mr. McGilligan

What would it be?

Mr. Lemass

Various estimates have been produced, but the number is given as between two or three hundred.

Mr. Dockrell

Is that per mill?

Mr. Lemass

No, the total.

Mr. Dockrell

That is seventy for each mill?

Mr. Lemass

Roughly about that. We went carefully into the cost of erection of such mills, the price at which the clinkers could be imported, and the cost of grinding in such mills, and also when the clinkers are treated, packed and distributed. It became quite clear that cement clinkers imported and ground in such a mill would permit the cement being sold here at a lower price than now prevailing for imported cement. We decided, therefore, it was advisable, in all the circumstances, to proceed upon these lines until it became clear that circumstances would permit of our doing the entire process without damage to other industries. We were in contact with various interested parties, and proposals were submitted to us, all of which we examined.

As a result of the examination of these proposals, we come to the Dáil with this measure. It is clear that if any company is going to embark upon the heavy capital investments involved in the erection of these mills, it would require to be secured in the supply of its raw materials for such a period as would permit of its amortising that capital. Such period, we ascertained, would be about ten years. It was, of course, within my competence to assure anybody interested in the proposal that it was the policy of the Government of which I am a member not to impose a customs duty or to impede the importation of cement clinkers, and it is possible that interested parties would be satisfied with such an undertaking. But I, naturally, felt it incumbent on me, in view of the fact that the period contemplated was longer than the normal life of a Government, to take such steps as the introduction of this Bill, and to inform the parties that I had the authority of the Dáil for an undertaking of that kind. It is said that there is nothing to prevent any future Dáil, in the exercise of its sovereign powers, repealing these proposals, or, by legislation, cancelling any previous Act in consequence of its powers. But it is obvious such action could not be taken unless circumstances had so changed the authority here that the Government in office at the time would feel it was justified in doing so. If this Bill is passed it will be passed with the full knowledge in the minds of everybody likely to be interested that that is the position.

Mr. Morrissey

What is the position?

Mr. Lemass

That this Dáil, being a sovereign authority, can repeal a Bill to-morrow that is passed to-day.

Mr. Morrissey

We all know that.

Mr. Lemass

Well the Deputy need not be boasting of his knowledge.

Mr. Morrissey

But everybody knows what the Minister has said.

Mr. O'Neill

This is a new Government !

Mr. Lemass

So far as this Bill is concerned, it is quite clear that, where an undertaking is given to any one company in consequence of the passage of this Bill, the circumstances resulting from that undertaking will apply to all companies. That is clearly understood. The passage of this Bill will permit the Minister to give an undertaking to a company that proposes to manufacture cement from clinker here that no duty will be placed on clinker for ten years. No special advantage is conferred on any one company. The advantage is open to all companies. As far as the law will permit, any company is free to engage in this particular industry. It is equally clear that there is nothing in the Bill that will prevent at any time any company engaging in the manufacture of cement, by which I mean the whole process.

I want to inform the Dáil that, to my knowledge, there is one company prepared, as soon as this Bill is passed to put up the necessary capital and to proceed at once with the erection of grinding mills on receipt of an undertaking from me: that following the passage of this Bill these mills will be erected and that cement from them will be available in six or nine months' time. That cement, I am informed, will be of the current British standard specification, and will be sold here at a price ex-mill substantially lower than that now prevailing. The Bill, as Deputies are aware, is a simple one and is introduced under the circumstances I have indicated. It is necessary I think that I should give an explanation to the Dáil why the Government is proceeding to get the cement industry established along this particular line as against getting the whole process of cement manufacture undertaken here now. There were various proposals by different companies and different groups of people in that connection. The adoption of any one of these proposals, and an embarkation upon that policy, would involve a customs duty on imported cement and a rise in prices. We decided deliberately and calmly——

Mr. Morrissey

A customs duty of how much?

Mr. Lemass

Each proposal had a varying rate of duty.

Mr. Morrissey

Would the Minister give us some idea of what that would be?

Mr. McGilligan

Was there any proposal that was not a monopoly proposal?

Mr. Lemass

There was, in fact, no proposal submitted to me which did not involve, in addition to a customs duty, a monopoly of the market, subject to control of prices, such control of price being a price higher than that now prevailing. We decided, therefore, and decided deliberately, after very mature consideration, that we were going to proceed along this alternative line. By this alternative line we get a substantial part of the process of manufacture done here. We get employment for an equivalent number of people, and we get cement at a lower price than it is now available. That is, I think something that we can be satisfied about, particularly when we know that it does not place any barrier to the establishment of the complete industry here at any time that circumstances will permit of that being done. I accordingly move the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Would the Minister say if he proposes to impose a tariff?

Mr. Lemass

There will be no tariff whatever on imported cement.

Mr. Dockrell

With regard to these grinding mills, could the Minister say what their output would be per week?

Mr. Lemass

I take it the Deputy is referring now to the plans in contemplation by the particular company to which I have referred. This Bill does not relate to any particular company.

Mr. Dockrell

What is the Minister's conception with regard to the output of a grinding mill?

Mr. Lemass

At present we require roughly about 250,000 tons of cement per year in the Saorstát.

Mr. Dockrell

The Minister, I think, made mention of 200 people being employed in three mills. Is it the Minister's idea that the whole of this 250,000 tons of cement should go through these mills?

Mr. Lemass

That figure represents the total market in the Saorstát.

Mr. Dockrell

What is the Minister's idea as regards the capacity of these grinding mills?

Mr. Lemass

I understand that it is the intention of the group to which I have made reference to establish at least three mills with a maximum capacity of that amount.

Mr. Dockrell

What amount?

Mr. Lemass

250,000 tons. Of course they will be selling their product in competition with imported cement or any other cement that may be permitted in the country. It is not intended to impose a customs duty or to restrict the importation of cement in any way. The only concession they are getting from the State is this undertaking that their supply of raw material will not be subject to duty for ten years.

Professor Alton

Will other companies be entitled to get the same concession?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Morrissey

I was sorry I was not here to hear the full statement of the Minister when moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I am concerned in this matter, principally as to the amount of employment which is going to be given in the country. I do not know whether the Minister gave any figures as to the amount of extra employment that will be given. I am informed that, as a result of the passage of the Bill, the number would not be more than 30.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Morrissey

I am giving my opinion. I can assure the Minister that since the Bill got a First Reading I have gone to a good deal of trouble to consult many people in the trade with a view to getting an approximate figure. I realise that the Minister cannot give an accurate figure. Neither can those whom I have consulted give a definite figure. I am assured, however, by many people who have been in this business for a number of years that the employment which will be given as a result of the passage of this Bill will not exceed 30 hands.

Mr. Moore

To produce 250,000 tons of cement per annum.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister has not made that claim for the Bill. What he said was that the total consumption of cement in this country is 250,000 tons a year.

Mr. Lemass

In or about that.

Mr. Moore

Thirty hands must develop into some figure of production.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy apparently knows nothing about the cement industry. I was going to explain that, if we import the cement clinker free, the amount of employment that will be given to turn the clinker into cement is practically negligible; that it is not worth talking about. So far as the manufacture of cement is concerned, the real employment is given in making the clinker. I think the Minister will admit that.

Mr. Lemass

No, quite the contrary.

Mr. Morrissey

I am astounded. My information is this: it is got from experts in the trade and from firms that are going to benefit by this Bill, that so far as the question of employment is concerned the greatest possible amount of employment is given in the manufacture of the clinker. Does the Minister deny that?

Mr. Lemass

I do not pose to be an expert. The employment in any case is quite small. We are gaining in employment by the fact that we can have at least three grinding mills as economic units of production. We could only have one cement factory as an economic unit of production. The employment given in three grinding mills is about the equivalent of the amount of employment that would be given in one cement factory.

Mr. Morrissey

I, like the Minister, do not pretend to know very much about this matter, but as one member of the House who is interested in it I have done all I possibly could to get information. My information is that seven-eights of the employment is given in the manufacture or production of the clinker. That is my information. There are members of this House who have some practical knowledge and experience in this matter, but I am giving my opinion for what it is worth. I do not know anything at all about it myself, but I am told that practically all the employment in the cement production business is in the production of the clinker. Once the clinker is there, it is a matter purely of machinery grinding it into cement, and I am informed that the amount of employment given would not be more than thirty hands, and I am further informed that the present tariff on cement, that is, the tariff against British cement and in favour of the foreign cement——

Mr. Lemass

The emergency duty.

Mr. Morrissey

It is the same thing so far as purchase is concerned, but I am informed that whether cement is imported from England or from Belgium, there is a cement ring, and that even if the cement is imported from Belgium, the English cement exporter gets his share of the spoils out of the profits. I have been informed of that by a fairly extensive importer of cement. I know nothing at all about the business myself, but I have gone to the trouble of trying to acquire information. I should like to remind the Minister of some of his own speeches in this House during the last four or five years. I should like to remind some members of the present Government Party, and, if he were here, but unfortunately he is not, Deputy Corish of Wexford, of the Drinagh Cement Company in Wexford. I should also like, if it were possible for me, to refer Senator Comyn and many others who have laid down here for the last five years that there was no reason why this country should not support at least one cement factory. I should also have mentioned Deputy Tom Finlay, who, I understand, is ill, but who also wanted a cement factory in Skerries.

Mr. Lemass

Neither is there any reason.

Mr. Morrissey

What does the Bill mean?

Mr. Lemass

There is no question whatever that we can make cement here.

Mr. Morrissey

Then why the Bill?

Mr. Lemass

I have explained that.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister has not. The fact is that the Bill means that we cannot have an economic cement factory in this country. Does the Minister deny that?

Mr. Lemass

It is not true.

Mr. McGilligan

That is what the Minister said. The Minister said that it would undoubtedly raise the price and that that was the reason why a cement manufactory was turned down.

Mr. Lemass

Quite. But it does not follow that the price here would be higher than that now prevailing in Britain.

Mr. Morrissey

Am I right in saying that the Minister agrees that it is not an economic proposition to set up a cement factory in this country?

Mr. Lemass

It is quite an economic proposition.

Mr. McGilligan

What does the Minister mean by "economic"?

Mr. Morrissey

Am I right in saying that the Minister stated, in his introductory speech, that, in order to set up a cement factory in this country, we would have to give a tariff which would be uneconomic and which would create a monopoly? Was that the Minister's statement?

Mr. Lemass

It would involve a tariff and it would involve a monopoly for the one factory, but one factory selling cement here at prices comparable with those prevailing elsewhere as an economic proposition is conceivable, but Deputy Morrissey, perhaps, does not appreciate the fact that we have been getting certain benefits from our position in respect of the price of cement over a number of years.

Mr. Morrissey

I must say that I am more confused now than I was before the Minister replied to me.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is wandering into a very intricate field.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is wandering into an even more intricate field. Does the Minister say that it is an economic proposition or not to set up a factory here?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know what the Deputy means by the word "economic."

Mr. McGilligan

That is right.

Mr. Morrissey

But the Minister contradicted me in my first point and said that it was quite economic, while in his own speech he said that in order to set up a cement factory to produce cement from the ground up, from the first substance to the finished article, was not possible, that it could not be done, and that the protection that would be required would be out of all proportion, and, secondly, that we would have to give a complete monopoly here which the Minister, and I agree with him, does not desire. This Bill is the most effective answer that could be given to the speeches made by the Minister himself and by his colleagues over a number of years on the cement question. What does it mean? Three-fourths of the labour involved in the making of cement goes into the making of the clinker. The clinker is imported here and it is then a question of machinery grinding the clinker into cement, and I put it to the Minister that the employment to be given as a result of the passage of this Bill would be very small. I want to say this, however, that, if the Minister can assure me that the passage of this Bill will not mean any undue—and I will let the Minister make any play he likes with the word—increase in price——

Mr. Lemass

It is going to mean a decrease.

Mr. Morrissey

If it means a decrease in price, without any decrease in quality, and if it were to mean the employment of only two extra hands, I am going to Vote for the Bill. I do say this, however, that the Minister ought to be—if I use the phrase "honest with the House," I may be misunderstood, but I am not impugning the Minister personally—but, at any rate, if he is putting this Bill before the House, he ought to give us the real reasons and all the reasons why it is not practical at the moment to set up a cement factory in this country. I want to make my position clear. I am not very much in love with this Bill, but if I am assured by the Minister that it is going to mean that we can produce as good an article at the same price, at a lower price or, even, at a slightly increased price, and give more employment—even if it were only five extra men—I am prepared to vote for it, but I want to know why we cannot carry out the suggestion made by the Minister himself when he was in Opposition two years ago for a cement factory in this country.

Mr. McGilligan

I may say that I have much the same feelings as Deputy Morrissey has expressed himself as having on one angle of this whole measure. I had got a fairly clear idea from the Minister when he was speaking, and I attended to all he said, but he has left me very much confused by his interjections to Deputy Morrissey. He did say, without the slightest doubt or hesitancy, that to adopt proposals for the establishment of a cement manufactory in this country, raising the materials here which we have, would have meant an increase in the price of cement.

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

He said that it would not affect seriously the question of employment here, although later we were told it would give very much the same employment—that is two hundred people. These two things have to be considered in relation to the big capital which would have to be employed in cement manufacture. He said later that by importing this clinker and giving some guarantee in this Bill we will be able to produce it at the same price as that imported. To one interjection by Deputy Morrissey he said at the same price as English cement. I do not know whether he means the English cement against the Emergency Duties or in any event, supposing it is, it is notorious that Belgian cement has been coming to this country for years at something not less than about 6/-under the price of English cement, and, if you take the quoted price of English cement, the price is nearly 12/- less. I do not know whether the guarantee giving these proposals is a guarantee for a period not more than eleven years and if we are going to have cement at not less than the price at which we can import Belgian cement. Is that what is proposed? If we can get cement here from imported clinkers, which we will be able to sell at not less than the Belgian cement is being sold already, is that the proposal?

Mr. Lemass

It is not intended to put a restriction on the importation of cement. I would like to qualify that to this extent, that there has been some indications recently of what is clearly "dumping" from one or two countries, where there is a depreciated currency and certain other factors operating to induce the exportation of cement at a lower price than that at which it is sold here, and much lower than in the countries of origin. If that went on to an undue extent we might have to contemplate certain duties designed to restrict that type of importation. The intention is definitely, subject to that qualification, that there will be no restriction on imported cement and consequently, any company operating here following the passage of this Bill, if it wants to sell cement here, it must sell in competition with other cement. The intention of the group I mentioned is to sell at a substantially lower price, which they are quite capable of doing.

Mr. McGilligan

At a substantially lower price than the Belgian cement now coming in. Can we take it that it is up to the standard?

Mr. Lemass

I am talking of that cement.

Mr. McGilligan

Belgian cement up to British standard. We are going to have cement manufactured here and sold at substantially less than the price of Belgian cement that is coming in.

Mr. Lemass

It will be sold in free competition.

Mr. Dockrell

And no duty?

Mr. McGilligan

So that there will be no duty put on Belgian cement coming into this country. Therefore we have to take it that the test is that they are satisfied with the tariff against Belgian cement; they are satisfied that they can sell, as the Minister stated, at a substantially less price than the Belgian cement now fetches. That is going to take some doing. I want to get back to the point that Deputy Morrissey started upon, the adoption of the proposals for cement manufacture, that the raising of materials here until the cement is turned out has been turned down because it would increase the price of cement, and because it would only give about two hundred people employment. We have not heard by how much it would raise the price of cement. We have not heard what would be the extra cost to the community spread over housing and road making. I would like to get the amount, because remember we are going to impose a tariff upon flour in this country, and the estimate made by those applying for that tariff was that no higher number of people will be put into employment than 130, while it is calculated that the cost will be £330,000. Yet that is accepted, notwithstanding that danger, and for cement we are turning down the idea or raising the materials.

Mr. Lemass

I am not turning it down.

Mr. McGilligan

We are turning it down for the time, on the basis stated by the Minister, that when you offset the amount of employment given to two hundred people, and the extra cost to the community of cement made here, in the words of Deputy Morrissey, you have to consider that it is an uneconomic proposition. I remember the Minister saying here on one of these dumping duties about spades and shovels that if you took as a test the price at which you could buy the articles imported we should stop manufacturing everything. That was the test the Minister applied with regard to the turning down of cement manufacture. The Minister says that these things have all to be related to the capital involved. Whose capital would be involved in any proposals put to the Minister for establishing the cement industry? Was there any capital from this country? There were firms quite prepared to put up all the capital. Why need we bother about that capital except and only in relation to this, the selling price of the commodity, which would have to be sufficient to enable whoever put up the capital to get back their money? If there were people prepared to risk as much as £750,000 to establish the cement industry I would like to find out, before we go further, what would that entail in the way of extra cost on the community, and what would it entail in the way of extra employment over the two hundred persons spoken of as likely to be occupied through the grinding mills? I do not know how the labour is divided. I think Deputy Morrissey exaggerated the point a bit. It seems to require explanation that if you simply import clinkers to grind in a mill that you are going to get the same employment as by raising the material. Surely there is more in raising the material and transferring it to the site of a factory. We have to add that to the employment given at the factory. At any rate the point arises that with clinker brought in here, and with Irish material, the employment is the same in both cases. If the clinker is imported there is a certain amount of dock labour that is to set against the employment given in raising the material. Again I suggest that the materials are not merely here in abundance but are here in abundance in many areas. I welcome that as far as it shows a glimmer of sense at last with regard to certain economics—even elementary economics— that you have to consider the price, so far as it affects us in two directions, the building of houses and the making of roads.

I want to get another item considered. Supposing cement was to go up by from 3/- to 5/- a ton, has any calculation been made as to what will be the extra cost per house in the different categories of houses under some Housing Acts, in comparison with what would be the cost if they were houses now building with imported cement? That is the only test I think that should be applied in these cases. How much per house, in the different types of houses we have to consider, and for which subsidies have been given, would be the increase by using Irish manufactured cement in comparison with houses built with imported cement? That is one side of the thing, and, in so far we see at last some appreciation of the fact that the final cost to the consumer has to be taken into consideration, it is pointing to an improvement in the mental process of the Minister, that education has some effect, and that experience is telling some little bit. All that is very welcome. But I think there is a serious objection to this Bill from another angle. I do not suppose there was ever a proposition of this type put before any Parliament. Look at the terms of this: "When the Minister for Industry and Commerce is satisfied that a company has, whether before or after or partly before and partly after the passing of this Act, erected" certain machinery, that Minister may "at his discretion, by writing sealed with his official seal, undertake with such company that no duty of customs" shall be imposed for an eleven year period or downwards. There has been a heap of talk about secret documents recently. What is the Minister asking us to do now? He asks that, at his sole discretion and whenever he thinks fit, he should be allowed to tie the hands of this House as far as he can do it for eleven years. Has ever such a proposition of that type been put before any House? In what are known as trade treaties there is a denouncing clause, but the trade treaty is ratified and the House has it in its control to say that the period over which the treaty is to last is too long and that the period in which it may be denounced ought to be shortened. We are giving control here over one important item of customs to a Minister who may be replaced in six months.

We give him power to tie this House on a financial item for eleven years. There was a considerable amount of constitutional learning poured out in the Parliament of England to make the Ottawa duties operate over a period of five years—a limited period—a period somewhere near the lifetime of the House over here. This, however, is for a period to extend, as the Minister said, over the ordinary normal lifetime of the Government here; and it is to be done without the House getting any idea as to what the proposal is in respect of which he is likely to certify. This clearly demands much more than what is contained in this skeleton Bill. On a proposal like that contained in this Bill I would certainly give notice that, as far as I am concerned, I would not consider myself tied by any guarantee that the Minister gave under these conditions. If any firm takes up business under a Bill of that type, it is asking for trouble. If the Minister wants stable conditions for firms coming in here he has got to give more than is contained in this Bill. He has got to come here with proposals. He has got to give the relative prices per ton of the various cements and inform us what amount of capital is going to be put into it and who is going to give the capital and, in contradistinction to that what is the best kind of cement and what is the extra employment which will accrue out of these enterprises. He has got to tell us where the material is to be raised and if it is to be raised in different areas, where these areas are. He has got to let us know in these schemes where the capital was to come from, what capital was proposed, and in the end what was going to be the price at the factory itself and the price at which the material was going to be sold through the country. If all parties decide, after getting these details, to agree to this, then the firm has some reasonable guarantee; but if any firm takes up position under the Bill as it stands now, then they are asking for a very definite rebuff from any Government that comes into power which is able to change that guarantee. It must be emphasised that nothing that this Parliament does can tie the hands of the next Parliament.

I thought, as I said, when I saw this amazing proposal to give the Minister power to tie the hands of the House in a matter of finance over a period of eleven years, that the Minister's speech in seconding this was going to set forth all the things that I have alluded to. I thought that we would know the details; but I doubt if anybody, after listening to him, has any knowledge as to what price cement is going to be sold at for twelve months after the three grinding mills have been established. What profit do the people, who will establish these mills, look to get for this? They are going to amortise their capital in ten years, we are told. I do not know why a period of ten years was chosen. Does the machinery that grinds clinkers ordinarily require to be replaced in ten years? If it does not, why is that period chosen? Is it to avoid the instability that accrues from two Parliaments having to recognise this guarantee?

Of course, if the thing is to go through, and all the details are given to the House and proper consideration given to it, then it would be far better to extend the period to whatever would be the ordinary life of the replaceable machinery. The Minister tells us—and this again I want to have further explained— that if we give this guarantee for eleven years or some period not longer than eleven years, that we can later on go on to the full scheme of development of cement works without harm to any other industry. That leaves me a little bit puzzled. At the moment, we are turning down a scheme for raising the raw materials for cement manufacture from where they are in this country and we are doing that because the Minister said it would raise the price of cement. But later on, he said, we will be able to do that. Why? Why later on instead of now? What circumstances later on will enable us to raise the material? We adopt a scheme now whereby we import raw material and grind it here, but later on we will be able to go on to a scheme in which we will raise our own cement material and manufacture it here. If that is so, there is some explanation required as to why it is not being done now and as to why it cannot be done now. We are going to erect, I understand, three mills. Are there three firms in question before the Minister's mind at the moment, or only one? If there is only one, why the diversion into three mills? Is it part of the decentralisation of industry that has been so affecting the Minister for so long? If there is only one firm, has that one firm, on its own, suggested three grinding mills, or has there been any consideration given to the possibility of getting a decrease in the cost of the manufacture of cement if all this grinding was to be done at one mill instead of in three mills. If there is only one mill, what is the employment to be given at that one mill? Are we, in other words, looking to get three grinding mills in order to sweeten three constituencies for the Minister and to get some little amount of employment, which is wasteful employment, rather than have the whole thing done at one mill, which might mean possibly less employment but getting in the end a reduced price to the consumer?

In connection with that, we also require some information from the Minister as to whether or not, when proposals were put up for cement factories in the country there were also proposals for a single factory; whether, of their own, these people decided that they had better have one, two or three factories; or whether it was the Minister's pressure with regard to decentralisation that insisted on this being done. I should like to get definitely put before the House, before we go a step further with the Bill, a statement as to the best proposals under monopoly conditions, with regulations as to prices, for a single cement works to manufacture cement for the whole of the country; the best price which that monopolistic group could guarantee for the distribution of cement through the country; to the areas where generally cement is used; and, as a contrast to that, a statement from the Minister as to the price that will be paid finally under this. Then we can take our decision on it, knowing that this scheme, at any rate, wipes out what the Minister has so often lectured us about, the use of certain raw materials which are here in abundance for a certain manufacturing process. We will have to find out why. I am not saying there is not a good reason, but it has not been explained.

The thing has to be subject to certain variations. I should like to have some statement as to the more or less exact price at which, over, say, a six months' period, cement will be sold here after these grinding mills have been established; because if there is a definite guarantee that we can have a substantial reduction, quality being the same, on the price at which Belgian cement is being imported, then something has been promised to the Minister which was never promised before. If there is a promise I want to know if is subject to any variation; variation, say, in the rate of wages to be paid; variation in the price to be paid for coal; variation with regard to, say, the use of electric power, if electric power is to be used in the factory. If all these things enter into consideration, let us have, at any rate, a statement as to the items which enter into the scheme; at what wage rate, at what price of coal, and what price of electric current, is a guaranteed price going to be made to us for a six or twelve months' period?

I suggest seriously that it is something that amounts to an insult to the House that they should be asked to pass this. It is a complete scorning of Parliamentary procedure. For eleven years, the Minister is going to be given the power to tie up this House, and another House so far as he can, with regard to the imposition of customs duties on a particular item, when he is satisfied, not when the House is satisfied, but when he is satisfied that certain machinery has been erected, or is going to be erected, and that from the clinker imported cement is going to be turned out at some price which the House does not know. That is an amazing proposal, a proposal which I think the House should reject. If there is to be a scheme of development, and if the Minister wants to be in a position to ensure that firm or firms some stability with regard to conditions, he has got to do all I have said: to give this House the material upon which they can come to a proper conclusion; such a conclusion as would enable them to say that it is right and proper to tie this House and the succeeding House in so far as they can.

Mr. Minch

It cannot be done.

Mr. McGilligan

It cannot be done legally. You might, at any rate, come to some point of giving people who are making a bargain with you some better security than they would have if this goes through. You have to get all these elements. What decision is possible under this and under what the Minister said? Nothing, except to trust the Minister. Can anybody, after reading the Bill and listening to the Minister, say that he is in a position to give an answer to any of his constituents who may ask: what is the price at which cement is going to be sold in this country, and for how long, and subject to what variation? At any rate, for what it is worth, if that is all that is to be put before us—I hope it is not all; I hope there will be some attempt to give details on which a decision can be taken—let us have it stated from this side of the House that any bargain founded upon that is going to be baseless, is going to be a most tentative sort of arrangement, one open to scrutiny; and the moment it can be scrutinised by other people it is going to be open to change, at the earliest moment at which change can occur. The only way to get out of that situation is to put more details before the House than have been given.

Mr. Dockrell

I should like to ask a couple of question. I notice that this says: if and whenever the Minister for Industry and Commerce is satisfied that a company has erected a mill. Surely, it is scarcely fair to a company to ask them to erect a mill and then come to the Minister for his permission? It ought to be possible to arrive at some stage at which, if they comply with certain conditions, they will get the permission. The Minister mentioned that this is a half-way house towards the establishment of the cement industry here. It occurs to me that it may be quite the opposite, because, obviously, if grinding mills are put up, they will be put up at the most economic points for grinding clinkers coming in from overseas. If, at some future time, a cement factory is established in this country, it might happen that the site chosen may not be near the grinding mills. The Minister, I understood, stated there will be no duty imposed upon imported cement. That is really the acid test: keeping the supplies open to the people of the country and ensuring that the price would not be increased by reason of protection given to someone who is already doing the process of manufacture here. I am absolutely unable to follow the Minister's reasoning that the price will be substantially reduced by grinding in this country. The Minister, no doubt, can elaborate it, but I cannot see how, by the leaving of some of the grinding mills idle at the parent mill, while clinker is brought in and ground here, the price is going to be reduced, if the factory is more or less being cut in two. That baffles me, and it is absolutely against all the ideas of efficient modern manufacture, which entails the grouping together of all the processes, if not under one roof, at least in one line.

Mr. Good

I would like to congratulate the Minister on the very frank statement that he gave us this afternoon. He told us that the manufacture of cement in this State is in substance an uneconomic proposition. That will be a great disappointment for many people in our country. We have been hearing frequently of the desirability of erecting cement factories in many areas in this country. From my own knowledge I am satisfied that we have as good a basis for the manufacture of cement in this country as is to be found in any country in Europe; but nevertheless, the fact is that, while we have the material from which excellent cement can be manufactured, we cannot manufacture it. I think the Minister deserves to be congratulated for bringing that matter to our notice.

Some of us on these benches have been drawing the attention both of this Government and of its predecessor to the serious effect an increase in the cost of living would have on the industrial development of the country. None of us who has been observing the imposition of tariffs here almost by the wagon-load during the last few months, until almost everything around us except the very air we breathe is tariffed—none of us who has been trying to live in that atmosphere will doubt that the obvious effect of it has been to increase the cost of living. If we look up the figures we will find that the increase in the cost of living here is very seriously in excess of the cost of living in either England or Scotland. I hope that Deputies who may follow me on this point will read the cost of living figures before they enter on the subject. I have read them and I find that the cost of living is a very serious factor.

It has been difficult to get Deputies here to realise its effect on industrial development. From that point of view this discussion has been to my mind of the most useful character. I congratulate the Minister on being so frank about it. The cost of living has its reaction in increasing wages. If Deputies have any doubt on that point, as some Deputies sitting behind the Minister may have, I will ask them to read to-day's Order Paper. There is there a motion that has been discussed to some extent by the Dáil, and it reads:—

That in the opinion of the Dáil every proposal for a protective tariff should include provisions to secure that fair wages shall be paid and fair conditions of employment observed in the protected industry.

I need not tell Deputies that that motion stands over the name of Deputy Norton. It specifies what Labour wants and what already we have had some strikes over in this State. In any industries that have been tariffed they want additional wages.

Now, let us get back to cement, but bear in mind the connection. The reason we cannot manufacture cement economically in this country is because of the high cost of production. The Minister told us quite frankly that if cement is to be manufactured in its entirety in this State it will be necessary to put on a protective duty and the result of that protective duty will be to increase the cost of building. We see the effect, in the first place, in the high cost of living. We have high wages and an inability to carry out a policy of industrial development because of high costs.

Unfortunately, the Deputies who have listened to this discussion have been few in number. The Minister said that while the manufacture of cement in its entirety would not be a practical proposition, if I may put it that way—the Minister does not approve the word economic—the nearest approach he can make to it is to set up grinding mills which will do a considerable volume of the work and which in themselves would be economic. I will not express any opinion at all on that point. I am glad to know that the operation will be economical and that it will not add to the price of the material.

The Minister was rather optimistic. He said he was quite satisfied that it will reduce the price of cement here. I was glad to hear that, although it may react on an industry in which I am interested. Nevertheless, if it is going to be of advantage to the country as a whole, that will not affect my support. Before one can express an opinion that would be worth anything, one would have to have some additional information from the Minister. I would like to have information on the following points:—How many have applied to the Minister for undertakings of this kind? What is the nationality of each applicant? Are there many Irish nationals amongst the number? Will this State of ours be called upon to supply any of the capital that is necessary? I hope not. I would also like to know where the Minister intends these factories should be erected. I do not know whether that is a matter on which he would like to express an opinion. Perhaps he would like to leave that to those who risk their money in the undertakings. I think that would be desirable.

I was glad to hear from the Minister that he was against increasing the cost of building further. I have tried on other occasions to point out to the House that the cost of building in this State is not alone at the moment the highest in these islands, but I have heard it said that it is amongst the highest in Europe. Be that as it may, it is an uneconomic proposition in this State at the moment. As a result of building being uneconomic, we cannot get people to embark on it independently. Another reaction is that in order to get building work, which is carried out in other countries without any subsidy because it is economic, embarked on here, the State is called upon to provide large subsidies. Not alone is the State called upon to provide subsidies out of public funds, but our local authorities have to subsidise, and subsidise heavily, at the expense of the ratepayers, all those building schemes which are undertaken.

Mr. Corry

Why?

Mr. Good

That is a matter which we shall have to discuss on another occasion and I should like to hear the Deputy who made that interjection speak on it.

Mr. Corry

And the wages paid.

Mr. Good

I was glad to hear the Minister make the statement that he was against adding further to the costs of the building industry. I am sorry that he had not arrived at that conclusion a few months ago, before he treated us to an avalanche of tariffs, many of which affect the building industry. These tariffs have increased the cost of building to a considerable extent. Not alone have they done that but they have made building a much more difficult operation than it was in the past by the holding up of necessary building materials for long periods by the customs authorities. I do not want to go into that point at the moment, but all these matters arise out of the tariff policy and they all add to the cost of building. I do not want to stress this matter further until we get information, which I hope the Minister will be able to give us in detail, on the points I have mentioned.

Mr. Corry

One would think, from the statements we have heard here to-night, that something terrible had interposed in the affairs of the country. The proposal is to erect three factories here which will give employment to between 200 and 300 men. One would think from all the simulated heat we have had here during the past few months about unemployment that members of the Opposition would be glad that proposals were being made to give employment to between 200 and 300 men, as well as supplying the material from those factories more cheaply than the imported material is being supplied. That is what the proposal means in a nutshell. Deputy Good told us all about the high cost of living. I can easily visualise Deputy Good's idea of heaven. When Deputy Good goes to another place, his ideal of heaven will be a lot of men, three-quarters naked, living on one meal a day, without any wages, with Deputy Good over them as a ganger with a big whip.

Mr. Good

I do not expect to find all the Deputies of this House there.

Mr. Corry

I do not expect to go where you will go. Deputy Good tells us about the high cost of living. It was only yesterday we were told that the farmer, who is producing practically everything necessary for life, was broken owing to the prices he was getting. How can the Deputy reconcile the two positions and at the same time vote in the same lobby with the gentlemen opposite? Deputy McGilligan roamed along from the price of flour to the result of the tariff on flour and from that on to the Ottawa duties. He brought them all into this little proposal for the grinding of these clinkers in this country at no additional cost to the consumer. Yesterday and the day before we were debating the position of certain producers owing to the action of Deputy McGilligan's late Executive Council in bringing in certain Bills to cover purchases in which certain gentlemen would be first paid for the landlord's interest, then paid for the evicted tenant's interest and, thirdly, given compensation for disturbance. When all those things were rolled up together and put on top of an unfortunate man, he was compelled to go out of production.

I have been deeply interested in this question of the manufacture of cement, for down in my constituency there is a district in which all the materials are available. We have also a deep water quay, with plenty of transport facilities. When I went into the matter, I found that the cost of the plant, if a factory were established there, would be so great that it was very hard to get people to invest in it.

Mr. Good

I am not surprised.

Mr. Corry

And that the amount of labour that would be given would not justify my going to too much trouble in trying to force the pace. Under this proposal, three factories will go up and give employment to 300 men. That is a lot. Better still, these factories will turn out the material at reduced cost and will bring about a reduction of Deputy Good's second heaven—building charges. I cannot understand what all the noise or what all the trouble is about or why Deputies opposite insist on wasting the time of the House on proposals of this description. Deputy Good has a special bee in his bonnet in connection with the high wages he must pay and the percentage he can knock out of those high wage earners by way of dividends. I can understand Deputy Good's point of view, but I cannot understand Deputy McGilligan's point of view. I cannot understand Deputy McGilligan's coming in here and twisting and turning over this matter. The Minister for Industry and Commerce could give a guarantee not alone for eleven years in this matter but, judging by appearances, he could give a guarantee for fifty years. He will be there as long as he lives as Minister for Industry and Commerce and he can go higher if he wishes. I can guarantee that. So far as you are concerned, you are a wash-out and you know it. It is not to-day you found it out.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must address the Chair and he must confine himself to the matter before the House.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Talk about cement.

Mr. Corry

I have dealt pretty fully with the proposal before the House. I have confined myself far more closely to the subject before the House than the Deputies who preceded me. I will however conclude now and give way to the Deputy whose sole industry in this country is to sell foreign imported produce.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

If there is one Deputy in this House who wastes the time of this Assembly; if there is one Deputy in this House who lowers the status of this Assembly it is——

Mr. Corry

—J.J. Byrne.

Mr. Byrne

—Deputy Corry. If there is one Deputy in this House to whom every man, no matter on what bench he sits would award the palm for ignorance it is Deputy Corry from Cork. I cannot imagine how the sensible people of Cork gave authority to put a man of that calibre in receipt of £360 a year to talk such trivial nonsense as this Deputy has been talking for the past quarter of an hour.

Mr. Corry

Imported shovels.

Mr. Byrne

This man got up and the first thing he referred to was the matter of employment. Was the Deputy in the House when the Minister was introducing this Bill?

Mr. Corry

Yes.

Mr. Byrne

Was he in the House when the Minister said that as far as the setting up of this cement industry went, it would leave the problem of unemployment untouched?

Mr. Corry

And Shamrock shovels.

Mr. Byrne

Will you hold your tongue and observe the decencies of debate? You are so damned ignorant that you are becoming impossible. You are not even fit to be a member of a county council.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should address the Chair and get away from personalities.

Mr. Byrne

I am sorry, but I have been so repeatedly interrupted by this Deputy that I might be pardoned for thinking there should be a limit to his peculiar performances. I want to point out that the Minister in introducing his Bill for this cement grinding industry in the Free State said that it would leave the question of employment or unemployment practically untouched. I want to point out one other thing and that is that when we were on the other side of the House as the Government Party the one thing about which we heard year after year, was our failure to establish a cement industry in this country. I had frequent letters from Skerries in the County Dublin, where all the raw material for the manufacture of cement exists, asking me to use my influence with the then Government Party for the setting up of a cement manufacturing industry. Time and again the present Minister for Industry and Commerce thundered against the inefficiency and the inability of the late Government for not having established cement factories in this country. He said that all that was wanting on the part of the Government was initiative to get on with the job. Now the Minister has got the job in his own hands and what has he done?

The introduction of this Bill is a confession of failure on the part of the Minister of his ability to tackle the job. We have in this country all the raw materials necessary for the manufacture of cement. We were told at one time by the Minister that certain English companies had bought up deposits of this raw material in different parts of the country, had prevented them from being worked and that this was done in the interest of share-holders across the Channel. What solution has the Minister now given for the unemployment difficulties confronting the country? A Bill to import clinkers, a Bill giving employment at the maximum to a couple of hundred hands. But if what Deputy Morrissey said be true it is really a Bill that will probably give employment to something more like 20 or 30 hands instead of the number which the Minister mentioned.

The Minister, in the course of his speech, stated that the setting up of these three grinding mills in this country would not influence the complete manufacture of cement. He was asked was the manufacture of cement in this country an economic proposition. He stated distinctly that it was. He went further and he stated that the setting up of these grinding mills would not prevent at a later stage the setting up of a complete process of the manufacture of cement in the Free State. What we here on this side of the House want to know is this—if it is feasible at a later stage or period in the industrial development of this country to set up cement factories completely equipped to manufacture cement, why cannot that problem be tackled and these cement factories set up now?

In dealing with a question of this kind I want to say that from the first day I entered this House I used any influence that I as a Deputy possessed for the industrial development of this country. In speaking to a Bill of this kind I have no wish and no intention of dealing with it in any Party way. I am on the lines that Deputy Morrissey is on. If there is going to be an increase of employment in the country through the setting up of any particular industry let us have that particular industry going straight away.

I think it is a terrible thing to think that an agricultural country like Denmark is able to meet all the needs of the home market for cement and in addition that it can do a huge export trade in that article. If that is capable of being done in an agricultural country like Denmark will the Minister for Industry and Commerce tell us why it is not capable of being done here? I do want to say one thing in regard to the powers that the Minister seeks under this Bill without committing my Party to giving certain concessions to the people to set up factories in this country. I for one have no hesitation in saying that as far as the granting of these powers by this House is concerned, it makes not one iota of difference.

The Minister has power during the life of his Government and not a single day longer. There is a Minister sitting beside the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the Front Bench, that is the Minister for Justice, and he knows as well as I do that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. I think it would have been well for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have consulted Deputy Geoghegan, the Minister for Justice, before he introduced in this Bill a provision that is devoid of common sense and that has no basis in law. The Minister for Industry and Commerce could have been told by the Minister for Justice that time and again attempts have been made by Parliaments to bind their successors and that not a single one of these has succeeded.

The only speeches that I confess I listened to in this Debate were the speeches of Deputy Good and Deputy Dockrell. These are two practical men engaged in the particular trade affected by the passage of this Bill. I could not gather whether they were in favour of this Bill or against it. Looking at it from the point of view of the plain ordinary business man it seems to me that the passage of this Bill through this House will certainly not worsen the industrial position of the people of this country. The question that a man has got to ask when technical details are lacking in the introduction of a measure of this kind is: Is it in the interests of the people or is it not? We are guaranteed certain things under this Bill that are very valuable if they are carried out. No. 1, we are guaranteed that there will be no restrictions on imports, so that competition will go on between the cement ground in the Irish factories and cement coming from outside sources. That is certainly a business proposition. No. 2, we are promised that there will be no increase in the price of cement. The only point about that is this, how is that guarantee to be enforced? By what means can this House be assured that there will be no increase in price, or that if there is an increase in price the prices charged in the home market will not exceed the prices charged elsewhere? If the Minister for Industry and Commerce would give us some information as to the guaranteed price it would be very acceptable to this side of the House.

Mr. Lemass

I did not mention a guaranteed price.

Mr. Byrne

You said that the selling price of cement in this country would be lower than the price at which it was actually being sold to-day, and you gave the House to understand that the price would be lower continuously in the future when those factories were established. Is that correct or is it not? Has the Minister any answer?

Mr. Lemass

I intend to reply.

Mr. Byrne

I am asking a question. He made that statement in the course of his opening remarks. Am I correct or incorrect?

Mr. Lemass

Oh, you are wrong as usual. I will reply at the conclusion.

Mr. Byrne

I have down here in black and white a note I took when the Minister made his opening statement: "One company is prepared to put up the necessary capital and cement will be sold at a lower price than that now prevailing." He was asked by Deputy McGilligan, the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, did that mean that the prices of cement in this country would be on a competitive level with the prices of Belgian cement. From what I could gather, the Minister nodded assent to that enquiry, and Deputy McGilligan said: "If that is so, the Minister has succeeded in getting hold of a proposition that has never before been got hold of in this country." Now let us be clear on this. When the margarine industry was being set up, and a tariff was being placed on it by the late Government, when they were on the opposite benches, a guarantee was given that the price charged for margarine in the home market would not exceed the price charged across the Channel or elsewhere. That guarantee has been faithfully observed, and if the Minister can act in the same way with regard to this new cement industry and give a guarantee on the same lines, he will find that the House will be very sympathetic.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy know the price of cement in Great Britain?

Mr. Byrne

That does not arise at all—whether I do or not.

Mr. Lemass

It is much higher than it is here.

Mr. Byrne

I am talking about the selling price of cement in this country.

Mr. Lemass

It is much higher in Great Britain than it is here.

Mr. Byrne

We are talking about Belgian cement, where you have keener competition. There is no use in the Minister equivocating. I want to ask the Minister this question. He said this country will find the necessary capital to establish this new grinding industry. Will that capital be found entirely by the company from its own resources, or will there be an application for a loan under the Trade Loan Guarantee Act?

Mr. Seán Brodrick

Deputy Corry has gone to great length to inform us as to the amount of material for the manufacture of cement in his own constituency. He has told us about the means of transport, and that everything is so cheap. I do not know whether he has mentioned labour or not, but he found everything very cheap and the only thing lacking was the cash. He said that the people refused point-blank to invest any money in this industry—the industry in this country of which the consumption is 250,000 tons annually. He could not get an Irish investor to invest his money in that industry. I ask the House what is the reason that you cannot get the money invested in it. I ask the House that question, and I ask the Minister that question. My opinion is that the country has no confidence in the Government.

We have been hearing for the last four and a half years what the then Government could do when they were on those benches. We had that matter of the cement industry debated here time and time again, and the amount of employment that such industry, if established, would give. Seeing that we consume 250,000 tons annually, a plea was put up about the thousands that could be employed in that industry here. Now that Fianna Fáil are the Government the only answer they can give as regards the consumption of 250,000 tons of cement annually is that it will give employment to two hundred men. Certainly I give credit to the Minister for one thing, and that is that after eight months of consideration he has begun to think of the consumer. He stated that by the setting up of those three mills cement would be substantially cheaper, and able to compete, I believe, with the Belgian or British Portland cement. I would like to know from the Minister whether the men who are going to invest their money in those factories are members of the British Combine of Cement Producers. If they are, it is very easy for them to compete because the price has got to be arranged by the combine. I would like to know that from the Minister when he is replying.

Now Deputy Morrissey stated that three-fourths of the employment went in the making of the clinker. There is only one-fourth of it which goes to the crushing of the clinker and making it into cement. We are told that there is plenty of material in this country for the making of it, but I am glad to see that the Minister now admits that it is not economic to manufacture cement in this country. He had been for four and a half years stating in this House that it was an economic proposition to manufacture cement here, but after eight months he has found now that it is not economic, and the best answer he can give to the workers in this country in order to try and establish the industry for the manufacture of cement, of which we use 150,000 tons per year, is that he can give employment to two hundred hands annually.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

In this matter, as in most other matters, Deputy Byrne is a clinker in criticising the present Government. Deputy Brodrick told us that it was probably through want of confidence in the Government that the people were unwilling to invest their money in this industry. I remember having asked for the establishment of a cement factory in this House during the past ten years and yet nothing was done by the Government which Deputy Brodrick and Deputy Byrne supported.

Mr. Brodrick

Are you getting on now?

Mr. Hogan

I will come to that. Nothing was done. Whether it was want of confidence, or excessive confidence, I do not know, but anyhow, nothing was done. I am not in love with this measure. I want to ask the Minister very definitely when it is proposed to manufacture cement in its entirety in this country. There is no doubt whatever there is an abundance of material and the very best material in various parts of this country. I would like to know what was wrong with the conditions put before the late Government and before the present Government. What is wrong with the conditions which will enable clinkers to be manufactured outside this country, imported here with additional overhead charges, and still you get this cement cheaper than it can be manufactured in its entirety in this country? Would the Minister tell us what is wrong there? The material is there, the labour is there, and I have heard the capital is there, and yet the clinkers cannot be manufactured in this country, converted into cement, and sold as cheap as the imported clinkers will be sold when they are manufactured into cement in this country.

I do not know that the positions were put up to the late Government and there was no monopoly asked for. I was asked by the people to put forward that project. They were not even asking for a tariff. They were asking if the Government could use their influence, not to make it a binding regulation, to get the Irish cement used upon public works of all kinds. I am told that position was put up—I have it on the word of one of the people who was responsible for the project. Yet the position is that we have to import clinkers and manufacture cement here and we can sell it cheaper than the manufacture of the entire material here. There is this in it, probably that the industry would be scattered around the ports where the clinkers are landed, and in the rural districts where the deposit is plentiful, there would be no opportunity of engaging in the industry. Will the industry be allowed, when the clinkers are imported, to concentrate around ports such as Cork, Dublin and other ports? I want the Minister to say that this Bill is in no way going to cut across the manufacture of cement in its entirety in this country and I also want to know how it is that the product imported from outside, the semi-manufactured article, can be sold cheaper in this State than the same article could be sold in this country when the deposit is there for the manufacture of the clinker, and the manufacture of the complete article.

Mr. O'Connor

A Chinn Comhairle, the few words I have to say on this matter will not be of a hostile nature, because I welcome anything that will give employment in the country, especially in regard to the manufacture of cement. For some years, I have been interested in the project myself. I have given it a good deal of time and it has cost me something to arrive at the knowledge I have as regards the manufacture of cement in this country. I am certainly surprised at the statement of the Minister, when he says this cement will be sold cheaper than the imported cement. I hope you are sure of your grounds. If you can do it I would certainly take off my hat to you. As Deputy McGilligan said it is a tall order. However, we wish you luck with your project, but I would say this to you, that any remarks that Deputy McGilligan has made to you have not been made in a hostile spirit. He is looking for information, for he has been through the mill exactly as you are going through it now. There have been several projects from time to time put up for the manufacture of cement here and as you know when Deputy McGilligan was Minister for Industry and Commerce, all information had to come through him. I would say to you now in an advisory spirit that I hope you will be careful and that the money of the State should not be invested unless you are quite sure that cement can be manufactured here as cheaply as the imported cement.

From experience we came to the conclusion that cement could not be manufactured here without either a subsidy or protection. For the amount of employment it would give it would be much cheaper for the State to pay the weekly wages of the number of workers free than the cost it would be to the people who would use the cement. Calculating the amount of cement which would be used in this country for roadmaking, house building, etc., and the employment it would give to manufacture that cement, and calculating the subsidy which would be needed to compete with the imported article, it would be cheaper to pay the wages of the number of men employed in making the cement—the subsidy would be more. Of course, I will be pleased if the thing can be accomplished. But I would ask the Minister to supply the information which Deputy McGilligan asked for. We should approach this with a good spirit. Employment, certainly, is badly needed, but it would be a pity if a cement factory were started here and afterwards turned out to be a failure. One thing surprised me in the Minister's statement when he stated that because the clinker could be milled here we can sell the cement much cheaper than the imported article. That is news to me and I would like to get further information on it.

Mr. Moore

Having heard a good deal of the debate I am unable to follow the reason for the attack on the Bill. So far as I can judge, the Bill does not commit the State for a moment, and according to the explanation the Minister has given, to any liability whatever. But, it is evident that a premeditated attack was made upon it. One Deputy came along and stated that this was only going to employ thirty hands. When asked to show how he produced that figure he almost lost his temper. It would seem to me that no man could give an estimate as to the number of hands which would be employed in any factory unless he had some idea of the extent of its production. Further, we heard the Minister questioned as to whether or not he could guarantee that the price of imported cement would not rise, notwithstanding the fact that he stated in his opening address that there were to be no restrictions put on the imported cement. It looks as if there was something that has not been quite explained.

I am interested to know whether this will prejudice any application for help that may be forthcoming with regard to a brick factory. The Minister knows that there has been a great deal of agitation in certain places in recent years for the establishment of a brick factory. I think his geological surveyors have advised him, or are in a position to advise him, that clay as good as any brick clay in the world is available as the raw material for such work. It may not be the case that a really practical proposition has been put before him up to the present, but I hope that if the State is going to assume any liability in connection with the cement factory, it will not prejudice any application that may be forthcoming with regard to a brick factory. The only objection that we see to the Bill is the objection made by Deputy Hogan, that the establishment of works such as may follow the passing of this Bill will lead to vested interests, vested interests in merely finishing work and that that might prevent the development at some future date of complete works. That would be a thing to be regretted and I should like to hear the Minister deal with the point that has been raised as to the relative volume of employment in the manufactory, which it is proposed now to set up, compared with the employment that would be given in a complete factory. I should like to hear him, also, as to the economics of a complete factory. I remember hearing one who was interested in a cement factory state that the amount of coal required for a complete cement factory would be a strong objection. It would be a costly matter if the coal were to be imported. That factor would also affect the location of the works. I can see no reason now for opposing the Bill, while at the same time regretting that a complete factory is not a practical proposition.

Mr. Goulding

Frankly I must admit at the outset that I do not know anything about the manufacture of cement, but the one thing that has drawn me into the discussion is that every Deputy who has spoken has admitted that the raw materials for the manufacture of cement are present in the country. I believe that all the raw materials can be obtained in the country and it is a puzzle to me to know why it is necessary to import this clinker. If we are going to manufacture cement in the country why not manufacture it from the very foundation? Recently I had a discussion with a gentleman who knew all about cement. The normal consumption of cement, I learned, was between 250,000 and 300,000 tons. He assured me that one cement factory to produce that amount would be a more economic proposition than three factories. He visualised an increase in the consumption inasmuch as you are carrying out a housing programme. Eventually you will also be building cement highways and probably our consumption of cement will be increased by 100,000 tons. He estimated that the factory would necessitate the employment of about 300 men. That is very much more than 30 men and it is somewhat of an increase on the 200 men mentioned by one Deputy.

As I stated at the outset I am not competent to give any opinion on the matter. I am just giving the opinion of this man who knew what he was talking about. I should like to emphasise the fact that he stressed, that three cement factories in the country would not be an economic proposition. He stated that one cement factory situated at some port where materials would be at hand, where you would have good railways and where good waterway transport would be available, would be an economic proposition. He was very emphatic on the point that three factories in this country with a comparatively small output would not be economic. I should like further to emphasise the fact that we have all the raw materials for the manufacture of cement. Why do we not proceed from the outset to manufacture cement from the ground up?

Mr. Lemass

I think that most of the things that have been said by Deputies in relation to the Bill are due to a misunderstanding of it. There is nothing whatever in this Bill that either prevents or impedes in any way the establishment in this country of a cement factory producing cement, as Deputy Goulding put it, from the ground up. The one thing which the passage of the Bill would require and which the Government would also require in any case if such a factory is established here, is that it could be able to produce cement at a competitive price. That is the sole condition on anyone who is prepared and has the necessary capital to operate a cement factory here to-morrow. Subject to that condition which is not imposed even by the Government, but which is imposed by the facts of the situation, any person can do it. Nothing in the Bill prevents him from doing it. In fact, nothing in the Bill prevents the Government from giving such people any reasonable assistance that a Government might give in ordinary circumstances to promote industrial enterprise.

I want it to be clearly understood that at no time did we contemplate the possibility of the Government manufacturing cement as a State enterprise. It seemed to us that such a step was not necessary and none of the proposals submitted to us by interested parties contemplated the production of cement here at a price which was as low as the lowest price, at which we can now buy cement from outside. I should like to tell this to Deputy Brodrick, in relation to one remark made by him, that we have had no scarcity of people willing to invest very substantial sums required in the cement industry, on the understanding that they were going to get protection in this market and be allowed to charge prices here as high as those prevailing in certain other countries. That is some indication that those people had a somewhat more optimistic view of the country than that possessed by Deputies opposite and perhaps a belief in the stability of this Government, which Deputies opposite do not profess to have.

We have got to face the fact that we in this country for some years were in a very favourable position in regard to cement. The cement industry is largely a trustified industry. All the various markets in the world have been parcelled out through the various producing units, but when the various firms were arranging their marketing schemes they apparently, for some reason, forgot the Irish Free State with the result that this was the only market where competition really ruled and, with the result also that prices were substantially lower than those prevailing in other countries. It is in relation to that situation that we have got to consider the cement industry. I do not know, I am not in a position to offer an authoritative opinion, as to whether it is possible to establish one cement factory here to manufacture cement at a price similar to that at which it is now imported. Nobody has offered to do it. I cannot see for myself why, if it is not now possible, it should not be possible at some time in the future, and that is my answer to Deputy McGilligan. He asked what circumstances were likely to intervene which would enable a complete scheme to be proceeded with in the future. The answer to that is the growth of the market. The importation of cement, into this country, in 1924 was 95,000 tons: in 1927, 164,000 tons; and last year 226,000 tons. The utilisation of cement has increased: the market is growing. If it is possible to establish a factory as an economic unit, selling at a competitive price, with an annual consumption of 200,000 tons, it might be possible next year or the year after when we reached 250,000 tons, to establish such a factory. There is no reason why we should not get as much industry as we can so long as the steps we take do not make the possibility of such an industry more remote. The steps we are taking here do not do that. If there is any group willing to invest the necessary capital and to make cement, by a complete process, a success here I shall be glad to meet them. Nothing in this Bill would prevent them going ahead with their scheme and I would be very glad to meet them and to wish them success. But there are other factors.

Deputies know how one industry links up with another, how the raw material of one industry is the finished product of another, how the waste of one industry may be the essential raw material for others. There are prospects that even we do not contemplate in this country of industries for which cement clinkers are the raw material. If such a development takes place here, then, the lines on which we are proceeding at the moment, to get a cement industry again established here should facilitate rather than impede any fuller developments that might arise. The main objection of Deputy McGilligan was that it might give power to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tie the hands of the Dáil in a definite matter of ten years. He expressed his resentment to that. But I pointed out, when introducing the Bill, that it was quite possible for another Dáil to repeal this measure. What is the position? Any Bill introduced is a declaration of Government policy and can be repealed. The Dáil is a sovereign authority and no one Dáil can be bound by the proceedings of the preceding Dáil. We introduce a Bill as an indication of the policy, and as an indication of what we are prepared to do. When Deputies talk of what can be done in a Dáil they must realise that a customs duty could not be imposed except by a member of the Executive Council with the sanction of the Executive Council. No private member could introduce such a customs duty. So long as this Government is in office there is no question of the Dáil's powers being restricted If this Government goes out of office and another Government comes in and so decides, it could introduce legislation to repeal this Bill, or, if it considered it desirable, introduce legislation taking power to annul any power enacted by a former Minister. But it would have to do that in the light of the circumstances existing, and it would have to justify its action before the Dáil. But nobody can question their legal right to do it, and if it happened that another Government came into office, in the next ten years, and desired to take such a course in relation to an undertaking given in this Bill, it could, of course, do so. But it will have to be prepared to justify its action to the Dáil and that is what the position of this Bill involves. In that connection I would point out that Deputy McGilligan obviously missed the point in the position he took up with regard to the agreement. He said any agreement made under this Bill would arise for examination and modification if a Government of which he was a member came into office. There is no question of an agreement. There is only a question of an undertaking given by the Minister in control that for a period of ten years the duty will not be imposed. Either a duty can or cannot be imposed. Any Government in office is entitled to act in the light of its own policy or prospective consequences.

There were a number of other points raised. I am asked why take three mills. I take three mills because I satisfied myself it is possible to establish, as an economic unit, a grinding mill of a capacity of one-third of our consumption. Consequently three mills are feasible. I know people interested in this industry are prepared to engage in it, and contemplate mills of about that size situated at three different centres. And it would be the policy of the Government to engage them and, so far as it has the legal power, it should insist upon that because it is our aim to decentralise industry except where decentralisation is obviously uneconomic. I am not purporting to deal with the points raised in any defined order. Considerable confusion appears to have been aroused by my reference to price. There is a question of a guaranteed price. The question of possible variation in price, due to an increase or decrease in wages or cost of coal or cost of electricity does not arise. I have told Deputies that there is a free market in cement. If anybody comes in to manufacture here, either the whole process or to manufacture from clinkers he is free to do so. Anybody who likes to send in cement from abroad is free to do so but he cannot possibly secure the market here except he sells a better and a cheaper cement. Persons coming in are perfectly alive to the position. But there is one qualification of the statement that there is to be no import duty on cement. It may be that some particular industrial group in some other country would think it would be better for twelve months to give us cement for nothing or at 1d. per ton or at some entirely uneconomic price in order to serve their own purpose. In that condition we would be prepared to advise some such duty as the late Government imposed upon bacon here designed to check the dumping and to leave free competition at a fair price. As I said, therefore, I anticipate a lower price than cement is now available at because any company coming in here cannot secure the market unless it sells at a lower price. There is another reason. From the costings shown to me it is clear that it is possible to import clinkers, grind them, and distribute the cement here from three centres—and remember the transport operates seriously in this economic argument in favour of the three centres—cheaper than the price at which it is.

For the first nine months of this year the average price of imported cement as shown by our trade statistics was 37/8 per ton at the port. I have again and again warned Deputies against average prices, and do not want undue reliance placed on that figure. The average prices shown in the trade statistics range from 40/5 downwards. That is the highest price paid for cement. There were various lower prices paid for cement in different countries. These would include cement of different qualities. The 37/8 per ton was the average price at the port for cement imported here. It is clear to me that first-class cement, up to the British standard specification, could be produced at the grinding mills here and sold ex-mill at 4/-, and possibly more, below that figure. I was asked where I intended to place the factories to be erected. I am not going to decide where the factories should be erected. The size of any factory to be established in consequence of this Bill, or a complete cement factory that people may engage on, will be determined with regard to economic considerations only by those who propose to finance and operate them. There is no reason, as I have said, why we cannot have or anticipate the establishment of a complete cement industry in this country. Standing here I want to say that I hope before I vacate office we will have in this country a complete cement industry.

Mr. Moore

If the new factories that the Minister is now contemplating are erected, would it not be better to have a clinker factory?

Mr. Lemass

That is a matter for future determination.

Mr. McGilligan

This does not help it.

Mr. Lemass

This does not impede it. In certain circumstances it may prove to be the only system on which we can proceed.

Mr. McGilligan

But we are binding ourselves to this system.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy were present in the House when I was explaining the position, he would know that we are confining ourselves to nothing by this except that if cement is going to be made here it is going to be made at competitive prices. I have no objection whatever to informing the Oireachtas immediately an undertaking, such as is contemplated in Section 1, is made.

Mr. McGilligan

Is about to be made.

Mr. Lemass

As far as that is concerned, I am informing the Deputy now that it is about to be made.

Professor O'Sullivan

Will the Minisster table it for the assent of the House?

Mr. Lemass

No. What I am asking the House to do is to assent now.

Mr. McGilligan

On the details that the Minister gave on the Second Reading?

Mr. Lemass

To assent now to that proposal. There is no secrecy about this at all. I have explained that the concessions in any undertaking given under this Bill are available for anybody and everybody who proposes to engage in the industry. The fact is that we were trying to avoid any suggestion of secrecy and that is why this Bill is before the Dáil. There will be no secrecy about the factories when they are erected. As to why the period of ten years was selected, it was selected because it was the period which was indicated and clearly demonstrated as that in which it was possible for a company selling cement at the level I have indicated to amortise its capital.

There were a number of other points raised which I do not think it is necessary to deal with. No application is pending for any State capital in a cement undertaking nor is any application pending under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act. I do not contemplate any. On the question as to the relative employment that would be given in a cement factory, that is a factory in which the entire process is carried out as against the employment likely to be given in three grinding mills of the kind I have indicated —I mention three mills because three mills would supply our requirements and would have an output equivalent to one cement factory of the minimum type—my information is that roughly about 180 or 200 people are, or would be, employed in a cement factory producing from 200,000 tons to 225,000 tons of cement per annum. The employment contemplated in a grinding mill, including the employment given in the unloading of the clinker into the mill and the clerical staff, would be in or about 60. So that you would have roughly three times that employment in three mills.

It is clear, therefore, that the difference as regards the actual number of people engaged between the two projects is not substantial. When Deputies sneer at the small amount of employment given in the cement industry I want them to bear several factors in mind. First of all it is clear that the cement industry does give small employment. In a mining proposition you can put one man to work for every £100 invested. In this industry the corresponding figures would be one to every £3,000, and there are several other industries of the same kind. Flour is one, as Deputy McGilligan pointed out. While the actual amount of employment given in the industry itself may be small, the amount of consequential employment given is not inconsiderable. Huge quantities of paper bags are used in packing cement. There are huge quantities of other materials also used. There is transportation and other work, so that the amount of indirect employment given is by no means inconsiderable. It may, in fact, well exceed the actual direct employment afforded.

I was asked what were the economics of a complete factory. That is a matter upon which I am not in a position to give very reliable information, because conflicting statements have been made to me. People have come to me and said that it is not conceivably possible to establish in the Irish Free State, with its present consumption, a factory for the manufacture of cement. On the other hand, people have come and talked to me of cement factories with 30,000 tons and 50,000 tons per annum production. That would be less than one-quarter of our consumption, but in no case did they talk of producing cement at a price which would be competitive with imported cement. If they are prepared to do so they can go ahead. Certainly we can contemplate circumstances arising in what I would call the near future, when it would be possible to establish a complete industry here upon an entirely sound basis arising out of either an increase in our consumption of cement or an improved technique in the actual manufacture of cement, following upon the invention of new machinery or something of that kind. Certainly our aim is to get a complete industry established here. We propose working to that end. In so far as there is a difficulty about that now we are proceeding on the lines I have indicated of getting as much as we can in the way of employment. We are getting more than that because we are getting a diminution in the value of our imports. We are getting the consequential employment that is given, and it is not impossible that we will be able to secure, as a result of the establishment of this industry here, that certain arrangements may be entered into by which in return for whatever imports have to be undertaken that certain exports will also be provided for.

These are the main points, however, and I think the Dáil has reason to be pleased that we are facing a position in which we will have, within twelve months, Irish-made cement of British standard specification at prices cheaper than those now available and manufactured in considerable part within the country. That is something we have not been able to contemplate before. It is coming now and will follow immediately on the passage of this Bill.

Mr. Moore

Might I ask the Minister if there is a free market in clinker or is all the clinker available in England the property of a syndicate?

Mr. Lemass

I think it is possible that, in territorial units, such as Eng- land and certain other countries, the industry is trustified, but we are not contemplating depending on any one country for supplies and, in fact, I have had very substantial evidence produced only quite recently that there is effective competition as between the groups.

Mr. McGilligan

Might I ask the Minister why if it is proposed to allow the importation of clinker free of duty irrespective of any individual firm, is the certificate to be given to a particular undertaking? Why should the Bill not set out that if and whenever any company—not one company—is going to put up machinery, he will certify from that date, for whatever period, imported clinker will be free of duty?

Mr. Lemass

It is really a matter of procedure. It comes to the same thing and this was the method we were advised to adopt.

Mr. McGilligan

The section says that "the Minister may undertake with such company." Why "with such company" if it is going to be open to all and sundry?

Mr. Lemass

It will be open and, obviously, that is the type of advantage that should not be given to one without being available to all.

Mr. McGilligan

Surely, it is the Minister who has to be satisfied that a company has erected machinery. Therefore, he can exercise his judgment as to whether the company has or has not erected machinery. Is not that so?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Then why should he give the undertaking to one company that no clinker imported shall be subject to duty?

Mr. Lemass

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a separate undertaking being given to every company.

Mr. McGilligan

But they are not certain of getting it.

Mr. Lemass

Once an undertaking is given to one company that, for the ten years, 1933 to 1943, this customs duty will not operate, it applies to every company, surely?

Mr. McGilligan

If it does, why is the undertaking given "to such company."

Mr. Lemass

It is merely a matter of drafting and it is considered to be the best method so that there will be the issuing of an undertaking over the official seal of the Minister.

Mr. McGilligan

Very good. Supposing an undertaking is going to be given to all and sundry, would the Minister undertake that, during such periods in which no clinker will be subject to import duty, no cement will be subject to duty?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. McGilligan

I thought we were going to have the free play of imported cement as a method of keeping down prices?

Mr. Lemass

I have dealt with that in my speech and I have explained certain circumstances in which we are prepared to contemplate a customs duty.

Mr. McGilligan

I see; so there is not going to be the free play of competition.

Question put.

The Dáil divided, Tá, 70; Níl, 45.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Bryan.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Curran, Patrick Joseph.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Everett, James.
• Flinn, Hugo. V.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Good, John.
• Gormley, Francis.
• Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Lynch, James B.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• Norton, William.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas J.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Broderick, William Jos.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Davis, Michael.
• Desmond, William.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Gorey, Denis John.
• Hassett, John J.
• Hennigan, John.
• Keating, John.
• Kiersey, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• McDonogh, Fred.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hara, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Conlon.

Question declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, November 23.