Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 May 1933

Vol. 47 No. 5

Cement Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

I move: That the Bill be now read a Second Time. Deputies will remember that, in the last Dáil, a Bill was introduced, the purpose of which was to facilitate the establishment here of cement-grinding mills. That Bill had not gone beyond the Second Reading Stage when the Dáil was dissolved and consequently it lapsed at that stage. Prior to the dissolution, however, I had announced in the House that, in consequence of certain representations received in the Department of Industry and Commerce, we were proposing to examine further the possibility of securing the speedy establishment of a complete cement industry before pushing the earlier Bill further to the Statute Book. Quite early on taking office, we gave attention to the possibility of establishing a cement industry here. It is an industry which has been established in most countries and an industry for which this country is particularly suitable in so far as we have all the raw materials available in abundance. We have also got a growing market for the cement, a market, certainly, which I think would justify the establishment of more than one cement-producing plant on an economic basis.

We found, however, that certain difficulties existed and we originally had the idea of proceeding towards the establishment of the industry in two stages, first, by encouraging and procuring the erection of grinding mills and, secondly, the erection of the clinker plant. Following the introduction of the Grinding Bill in the Dáil, various representations were made by different parties to the effect that it would be possible to establish the industry completely with very little additional loss of time to the delay that the establishment of the grinding mills would cause and we proceeded to examine the information on which those representations were made. As a result of that examination, we have satisfied ourselves that there are firms available which are prepared to finance, erect and operate in this country cement-producing plants capable of supplying all our requirements at reasonable prices. Deputies are aware that this is almost the only country in Europe in which there is a free market in cement. Most of Europe and, in fact, most of the world, is subject to a cartel arrangement. The different markets have been divided up between the producing firms and prices are fixed, generally on a monopoly basis. Those who were dividing up the world for that purpose forgot the Irish Free State and, at the present time, practically all the competition between the firms in the disposal of surplus stocks is concentrated here, with the result that we, at the present time, are enjoying cement from every country at about half the price at which it is available in the country of production.

Cement is being sold here definitely at a loss to the producers. That is, of course, a temporary advantage to us, but it constitutes one of the difficulties in the way of the establishment of a cement industry of our own in so far as we must be prepared to contemplate a rise in cement prices following the establishment of that industry. We have, of course, no reason to assume that a rise in price will not take place in any event, that those who are at present competing here will not come to an arrangement among themselves which will mean that this market will also become controlled.

We, however, believe that it should be possible to produce cement here at least as cheaply as it is produced anywhere else. There are many parts of this country where every natural facility exists for its production. The raw materials are available side by side with transport facilities and other advantages. The machinery that is used in the manufacture of cement will work just as efficiently here as it works elsewhere, and the costs generally will not be higher. There are some people who have gone so far as to say that there is no reason why we could not establish an export trade under various circumstances; but having regard to all the circumstances of the cement industry throughout the world I think that these people are optimists of the first order. However, there is no reason why we should not be able to supply all our own requirements and give a large amount of employment to our own people as a result. We have decided, therefore, not to proceed with the original Bill and have introduced this Bill which is now before the Dáil. The Bill provides that the manufacture of cement in the Saorstát shall be subject to licence. The scheme which we have in contemplation does not appear on the face of the Bill and that is why I think that I should give an outline of the scheme now.

Taking the market for cement in this country to be 200,000 tons per year, we can contemplate the erection of two cement factories, each capable of producing 100,000 tons. That would be an economic unit of production. Up to last year, the market here was growing rapidly, but in 1932, in this country and in every country, there was a very substantial falling off in the consumption of cement. Those who have studied the question say that it arose entirely out of the present depressed conditions of business which have brought about the postponement of capital undertakings and works of one kind or another, and that it is not due to any change in public taste or to any diminution in the utility of cement as a building material or of its usefulness for any other purpose. If the market continues to expand here in the future at the same rate as it did in the past, we shall get to the stage where a third and, perhaps, ultimately a fourth cement factory producing the 100,000 tons can be established.

Our present aim is to have two cement-producing factories. Certain people say that one plant producing 200,000 tons will be more efficient and more economical than two plants producing 100,000 tons each. That is true to this extent, that the cement from the one factory will be cheaper at the factory. Nobody wants it at the factory. It has got to be transported to the place where it is going to be used, and transport costs constitute a very considerable proportion of the price to the ultimate consumer. It is just as important to reduce transport costs as it is to reduce production costs. I think that it will be found that a greater number of our people will get cement cheaper if we have two producing units, more or less adjacent to the big centres of consumption, than if we had only one producing unit adjacent to one big centre of consumption.

Our idea is that, following the passage of this Bill, every person interested in the manufacture of cement here should submit to the Government proposals for that purpose. There will be only one licence issued for a cement factory in the eastern portion of the country, one in the southern portion of the country, and, subsequently, one in the western portion of the country. I am not attempting to define these areas any more closely than that. It gives a general indication of what we have in mind. These licences will be issued to the persons who put up what appears to be the most attractive scheme involving a guaranteed maximum price for the cement. I have every reason to believe that we will get from different parties schemes which will conform to our idea, and it will then be our job to select from them, in respect of each area, the scheme which appears best suited to the area involved and which will give the best cement at the lowest price. When that decision is arrived at, a licence will be issued and the construction will go ahead. I am informed that it will take from twelve to eighteen months to complete the construction of the factory alone. I should like to say further that it is not proposed to delay the examination of applications for licences. Following the passage of this Bill through the Dáil, on Second Reading, my Department will be prepared to receive and examine any schemes on the assumption that the Bill will become law so that, when it does become law, all the preliminary work will have been completed and licences can be issued without further delay and production undertaken at once.

That is the main purpose behind Part I of the Bill. It is also the purpose behind Part II. Part III requires a little explanation. Ordinarily, a company seeking to establish a cement works in this country would have to promote legislation by Private Bill procedure in order to get certain powers. There will probably be the erection of railway sidings involved, perhaps overhead roadways, and other construction work of that kind, all of which would require this power to acquire property, either compulsorily, at an agreed price or as fixed by an arbitrator under an Act mentioned here. That type of legislation is quite common and would have to be promoted here, but it is a slow and costly procedure, and in view of the fact that the public interest would have been already fully considered in relation to each one of these enterprises before a licence was issued, we see no reason why these companies should not be released from such obligation by inserting Part III of this Bill which will enable the Minister, following an inquiry or such examination as is necessary, to empower the licensee to effect this compulsory acquisition of property.

Deputies, in considering that part of the Bill, should bear in mind that these undertakings are going to be big undertakings. When completed, they will constitute some of the biggest industrial undertakings in this country. Each of the factories, which we contemplate will be established, will require the investment of £400,000 or £500,000 capital. In the bringing into existence of industrial organisations of that kind certain powers will have to be taken to ensure that there cannot be any vexatious delays.

Part IV of this Bill also requires explanation. It is quite obvious that, in the circumstances now existing, there is no prospect of getting a cement industry established here unless we are prepared to exclude foreign cement. Foreign cement is coming in, as I have said already, at less than its cost of production—roughly, at half the price available in the country of origin—and the sellers of that cement have shown no hesitation about cutting prices in the most drastic and extraordinary manner in order to get contracts or to maintain themselves in the market. On several occasions recently, information has been brought to me concerning cement contracts available or other opportunities of disposing of cement, of two and sometimes three firms cutting prices in the most extraordinary manner—one below the other and the other going below the first again in order to get sale.

In these circumstances it is quite clear that we cannot get the industry established here unless we exclude foreign cement. On the other hand, we cannot do that by a protective tariff. We may get one unit into production six months before the other and it may not be possible to exclude cement from all parts of the country at the same time. We may only want to exclude it from a particular part of the country. At the same time it would be an extraordinary position if we had in one part of the country Irish-produced cement selling at a higher price than cement in another part of the country where foreign-produced dumped cement was still being sold. It is also a consideration that the price of cement should not jump rapidly. Assuming we can get cement produced here from 34/- to 38/—I will say from 32/- to 40/-, so that firms applying for a licence will have a wide margin in which to vary their figures—and that cement at present is being sold at less than 32/-, or less than the price, at any rate, at which we will be able to get it produced here, we do not want a sudden increase in price. We think that the increase in price should take place gradually over the 12 or 18 months during which the cement factories are being erected and cement continues to be imported. In any event, I see no reason why the benefit of the price-cutting war going on at the present time should not accrue to the Exchequer. Out of public funds a very large amount is being spent at the present time to secure the construction of roadways, houses and other buildings, in all of which cement is used to a large extent, and if foreign countries are insisting upon selling us cement at a loss there is no reason why the full benefit of that reduction in price should be enjoyed merely by those who buy it. If we can get the benefit transferred in some way to the Exchequer then it can be shared out amongst all our people. For that reason, we have devised the system which is embodied in Part IV of the Bill.

It is really the person who occupies the house who gets that benefit in the long run.

So far as the State has subsidised the construction of the house, I see no reason why it should not recoup itself.

You will want to increase the subsidy if you increase the cost of the materials.

I should like to give the Dáil some information in that connection. I had inquiries made as to the increase in the price of a house which would result from a particular increase in the price of cement. I am speaking of any house built out of cement blocks and my information is that a four-shilling rise per ton in the price of cement will increase the cost of erecting the ordinary subsidy house by, roughly, 5 per cent., so that it would take quite a substantial increase in the price of cement to produce a situation which would involve a revision of the housing subsidies.

You did not ascertain the gauge of it.

These are rough figures. Quite obviously it would not be possible to get any precise calculation on that score. However, the scheme which we have devised here is that, following the passage of this Bill, the importation of cement will be subject to licence and the person getting a licence will be required to pay a fee which will be calculated with regard to the amount of cement he will import. In a sense that is a tax upon the importation, but it is a tax which may be varied from time to time or in relation to different classes of cement. It is necessary to have that means of variation because of the abnormal circumstances existing, the fact that cement from one country is sold at one price and precisely similar cement from another country is sometimes offered at half that price, and that occasional lots are being sold sometimes at extraordinary figures.

They are only apparently similar.

Described as similar, shall I say? I have had one example recently where cement from a certain country for a big contract that is going in another country was quoted at a price which meant that the producers of it were getting 7/- per ton, and seeing that it costs anything from 20/- to 30/- to produce, the loss can be estimated. What we want to get is a level price for cement here, that is cement of the same quality, and gradually to bring that price up to whatever figure we know to be the guaranteed price at which Irish cement will subsequently be available in a year or two years' time. The means we have devised is this licence fee, which will be varied from time to time, and which may be different as between one port or another, or between cement from one country or another, according to the price at which it is offered. It is a licensing arrangement which has been brought into operation in certain other countries and which appears to be working satisfactorily, although I suppose none of them have had sufficient experience of it yet to be able to offer a very conclusive opinion. So far, however, it appears to be working satisfactorily elsewhere, and it seems to fit the requirements of our particular case with regard to cement. All the safeguards which are necessary in consequence of an arrangement of that kind are, I think, inserted. There is provision made for the fullest possible publicity. Fortnightly returns must be published by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, giving the names of all persons to whom licences have been issued, the fee fixed in relation to the quality of the cement, the country of origin, and the port through which it is to enter. It is provided that whenever a rate is fixed in respect of a particular consignment of cement, the same rate must be charged in respect of any other licence for the same class of cement imported through the same port from the same country of origin and in the same calendar month. That provision which limits it to the same calendar month is necessary because of variations which may take place in cement prices in the meantime. A person applying for a licence must give information as to the net price at which the cement is being purchased by him. I admit that there is a certain weakness there in so far as a clever rogue might find it possible to deceive the officials of the Department dealing with the matter.

He would want to be a very clever one.

We have, however, taken power to inflict fairly heavy penalties and there is always the fact that if he is once caught he cannot do it again, in so far as a conviction under this Part of the Act debars him from getting a licence at any future date. The situation, therefore, between the date of the passage of the Bill and the date at which Irish-made cement would be available will be that any person may apply for a licence to import cement. He will get that licence on the same conditions, having regard to the quality of the cement and the port of entry, as everyone else and there will be the fullest possible publicity in respect of all licences issued, so that he will know where he stands. The fee will be calculated so as gradually to produce a rise in the price of cement, if such rise should be necessary having regard to world prices, and the ultimate price of the cement available here, up to the point at which Irish-made cement will be available. After that date cement will not be allowed in except into such parts of the country as cannot be supplied from the cement-producing units.

I have stated that we will have one in the East. Probably the first to be erected will be in the East. Possibly the second will be in the South and ultimately the third in the West. At some stage it may be necessary to license the importation of cement into the West until the market has grown to the point when we could contemplate the erection of another unit. While requirements in that part of the country cannot be supplied from the concerns already established, that licensing arrangement will still operate in respect of cement imported.

I would like Deputies to examine this Bill, having full regard to everything that we must do if we are to succeed in establishing this important industry. Because of the particular circumstances existing here, we must effect a degree of State interference that is not contemplated or effected in relation to other industries. We can have only a very limited number of units in any case. If we are going to institute the fairly rigid protection necessary in the world conditions now existing, we must have in relation to these units certain safeguards, one being the safeguard of the maximum price to ensure that the economic interests of the country will not be prejudiced by action on the part of the owners of the factories behind the tariff barrier. I think we can achieve that. We must also contemplate the fact that the control which it will be necessary to assert may also have to be utilised to ensure that if such cement-manufacturing plants are not owned by nationals of the Saorstát at the beginning, we will have reason to believe that at some future date they will pass into the hands of Saorstát nationals.

Will that present a difficulty in connection with the financing of the scheme?

I do not anticipate it will. I have reason to believe that we can get these factories established by external capital if we so desire and that we will have at least a sufficient number of applications for licences to ensure that there will be a competitive element in relation to it. I believe there is a substantial amount of local capital available for investment in cement factories and it is conceivable that possibly we may be able to get what we consider to be a better position in relation to this industry right at the beginning. We will have no difficulty in getting the consent of the licensees to the transfer of ownership to Saorstát nationals at a later date. Despite the knowledge that such a condition may be attached to the licence, I am quite certain we will get applications for licences. I do not think anyone need fear that we will be unreasonable in that regard.

The only conditions that may be attached to a cement-manufacturing licence are set out in Section 12. At first sight they appear to be a formidable list, but anyone reading the section over will soon see that they merely provide for the necessary safeguards both as to the price and quality of the cement on the one hand, the use of Irish materials wherever possible on the other hand, and the encouragement of Irish ownership subsequently.

How many hands will be employed in one of these works?

That is a point upon which I am not able to give precise information. I am assuming, in relation to each of these works, including those who would be engaged in quarrying operations and kindred operations that there should be 400 to 500 hands employed.

How many of these will be nationals?

We can contemplate they will all be nationals with the exception of, perhaps, one or two technical directors, whom it will be necessary to keep here for some considerable time. At any rate the bulk of the labour will be unskilled or semiskilled male labour.

Will the Minister labour a little more the reason for any licence for manufacturing cement?

I think I explained that. We can take this point of view, that anyone who likes can come along and manufacture cement here. So long as we have taken that point of view, nobody has done it and apparently nobody will do it. The market is extremely limited. If people are to be induced to invest the very large amount of capital required in the erection of a cement works, it is necessary they should be insured against unreasonable competition, whether that comes from abroad or inside the country.

Why should they be insured against competition?

Because otherwise people will not invest capital. There is no doubt that if one well-known cement-manufacturing company established a cement-manufacturing works in the vicinity of Dublin to-morrow, or proceeded to do it, there is at least one other well-known company that would do the same thing and the first company would have to contemplate the possibility of a price-cutting war being carried on within the country and no profits resulting.

What harm would that be?

The harm would be that no one would contemplate establishing a factory; no one would take the risk so long as there would be that possibility. As it is, nobody has attempted to start a factory. If we are to get a cement works established we must give this degree of security against competition, whether it be from outside or inside the country, protecting the public interest by the device of a maximum price for a specified quality.

Does the Minister not think that, because of the large amount of capital necessary, when one syndicate would start on the job another syndicate would be hardly likely to start as there would not be much chance of success if there was anything like cut-throat competition and, in such circumstances, the second syndicate would hardly venture to establish a factory?

The fact remains that we have not succeeded in getting anyone to take the risk up to date.

Has the Minister made an estimate of the amount of revenue he hopes to raise in this way?

It would be impossible at the moment to make that estimate. It will depend, first of all, upon the maximum price which is quoted to us by any firm applying for a licence. If we consider that reasonable and take it as standard, we have to fix a price that will bear some relation to the world price. Until we get information on these points we cannot estimate what the revenue will be. I do not think it will be very substantial.

I had intended, before the Minister spoke, to raise a particular point. I will do it now, because it will have application hereafter. According to our Standing Orders—No. 101—"Every motion for any aid, grant or charge on the public revenue, or for any charge upon the people, shall be considered in Committee of the whole Dáil to be known as the Committee on Finance. The Committee shall report before any Resolution or Vote of the Dáil is taken, and such report shall be considered on a future day, unless the Dáil shall otherwise order." Paragraph (2) sets out: "When a Bill incidentally involves any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, or upon the people, the motion referred to in this Standing Order may be taken at any time prior to the Committee Stage of the Bill." There is no doubt this Bill incidentally involves a charge upon the people. I think that it might be considered that in the main the Bill is nothing but a charge upon the people. Not merely is it incidental, but the subject of the Bill is a charge.

The procedure heretofore has been that it is always taken in Committee on Finance by way of Financial Resolution. We adopted that procedure in the case of the butter bounty business. It was afterwards followed by a Bill. Even if it should be said that it is only incidentally the charge comes upon the people through something else in the Bill, that is a matter for argument as to which is the superior point. The precedent in this House has been that this is discussed as a financial matter not merely before the Committee Stage but before the Second Reading Stage. I presume, however, as we have entered on the Second Reading, the point has been allowed go by default, but I hope it will be a matter that will not be allowed to operate again as a precedent. I think it would be better if this had been introduced as a Financial Resolution.

It was decided that it should be done in this way.

Who decided it?

Those responsible for the introduction of the Bill.

No one has a right to decide that but the Chair. It is a mad world economically that we are living in and the folly and futility have never been better shown than in this particular measure. The people who have been supplying cement to this country at half the cost of production are——

No, I did not say that. I said at half the price at which it is available.

Therefore it is half the cost of production. If it is available, if the people in their own country have it at half the cost of production, it is available for us at less than half the cost of production.

I am afraid I cannot follow that line of reasoning.

I will explain it to the Minister. If £x produces a certain amount of cement, it is available to the people of the country at something over £x. It is available to us at less than half the cost at which it is available to the people of the country where it was produced. Where are we? We would be paying about half the cost of production. However, we will take it in relation to our own butter bounty business. The people who are doing this must have anticipated our announcements in the butter business. Why should not we be all mad together instead of having this country peculiar in its madness? If we are mad enough to have the English people eat our butter at an extra cost to the consumer of butter here, why should we not avail ourselves of that folly in other people? That folly applies to cement, and if other people want us to use cement at less than half the cost of production——

Add to the price at which we get the cement the maintenance of those who would be employed in producing it here.

Yes, and if the Minister could give us any calculation on which we could strike a balance we could discuss this Bill then. At the very end of his statement in answering a question by Deputy Good, we got this from the Minister: "that he could not say what the employment was to be, but he hoped there might be four hundred or five hundred people employed." Whether that meant in all the manufacture of cement in the country or in each of these units I do not know.

I took it as four hundred to five hundred people in each unit.

What is the cost going to be to the country? Cement is going to be doubled in price.

No, not doubled.

Something about doubled in price.

At least £380,000 extra on the country.

There is some ascertainable figure, and that is the figure we want, and that figure ought to be set against the employment that will be given. We should have that figure before we decide whether this is a good or a bad proposition. But this Bill is brought before us without that information being given. A case has been sought to be made for the Bill by the Minister, and that information is not given. Without knowing that we are asked to vote on this Bill.

My point is this—I know and I have proposals from different people who are prepared to make cement here and guarantee the maximum price that will be charged. The price varied in the different proposals.

Has that any relation to the price in other countries?

No, it relates to the cost of production here.

Has it any relation to the cost of production in other countries?

No. The maximum price at which cement will be available will be the price guaranteed by the person who gets the licence. It is impossible to say how much that will be because one person might offer to make cement at 28/- a ton and we might come to the conclusion that he could not carry out that contract or that for some other reason he was an unsuitable person to get a licence and another application would be accepted at a somewhat higher figure.

Somebody might guarantee to produce it at 28/- a ton but the Minister will not let him, not because he might fail to produce the cement. Now I had understood that, particularly if it were an outside capitalist, we should all rejoice if he had spent and lost his money on this because we would get the benefit. I see that a peculiar tenderness has arisen for the outside capitalist. The Minister will see that the outside capitalist is not to sacrifice himself for Ireland's benefit.

I did not say that.

The Minister is not going to let him sacrifice himself.

If the Deputy can visualise somebody putting in a ridiculous figure for the purpose of getting a licence in the hope that he would be able to raise the capital he would understand that matter.

I cannot understand anybody doing that, if it is to end in his own destruction.

Not necessarily the destruction of the licensee or the person who applies for the licence.

Because his own money might not be put into it at all.

The Minister can certainly warn Irish capitalists if he thinks this is not a good proposition. I must say that I never before saw such peculiar tenderness as is manifested here.

The main thing is to get cement produced.

At any cost? If the Minister says that is the purpose of this Bill, and if he says at a considerable increase in the present price he would be right. The Minister has to put this case that we should get it at some increase in the present cost, and then we are going to get on to decentralisation of this industry and have three factories instead of one. This is in keeping with the whole atmosphere of economic folly that surrounds us. I investigated many cement propositions and I never got the wildest that came before me indicating that the final price of cement, where the materials were raised and manufactured in this country, was going to be anything like 50 per cent. increase in the present prices. Yet the proposition in this Bill, and the statement made by the Minister here to-night, indicate something like 100 per cent. increase.

We are to get a world price and we are told that we have cement available to us here at half the cost at which it is available in the country where it is made. Remember we are to have, according to the Minister's own promise, zoned areas. This is the only country which is to get the benefit of all this. This is the only country which is getting the benefit of the sort of surplus production which cannot be sold in the zoned areas. The price is beaten down considerably. The Minister said it was half the cost of production in other countries——

Available. The Deputy must bear in mind that the price in other countries may be inflated arising out of a monopoly position.

But how was the monopoly position arrived at? It was arrived at after fierce cut-throat competition amongst the big cement rings all over Europe. As a result of that, their prices were beaten down until they yielded a very small margin of profit. The Governments which tolerated the cartel conditions certainly saw that the prices fixed were such as would give a very small margin of profit. We are going to get cement hereafter in this country at greatly increased prices. The Minister's fear as to the increased prices is shown in another way. It would not be a good thing to see these prices increase at once, so they are going to be scaled up over a period of 18 months or two years. The people are not to be shocked by having the prices increased at once. We are to do the stepping-out over a period of about two years. That shows in a sharp way the economics we have got to, because we have the full view concentrated on this one article. Previously, we had the argument in relation to tariffed goods that producers in this country were being beaten down because goods were being sent in here under peculiar conditions. Everybody was dumping. This country should have been one of the easiest places in which to live during the last ten years because we were getting the advantage of dumped goods. But you could not get the ordinary man in the street to believe that in relation to his cost of living. We have another angle of view on this matter in relation to flour. The Minister told us that the price of flour was not going to rise, that any decrease brought about by reason of the price of wheat falling would be reflected here. Now, in answer to questions reiterated here by Deputy Dillon, we learn that there is a difference of between 4/- and 5/- per sack as between the foreign-produced stuff and the flour sold here. The Minister told us in a light-hearted way that it was only the leavings of foreign-produced flour we were getting. But here is the real situation. Here, it is not a question of leavings. Here is first class material which people are sacrificing themselves in other countries to sell to us at this dumped price.

We are now going to make our own cement and have increased charges. Further than that, we are going to have a decentralised industry. That means that at whatever prices we might get cement produced at a single factory, we are going to have those prices increased by dividing out the work over two or three factories. The Minister's answer to that is that the price of cement at the factory is not what matters but the price at the site where it is going to be used, and that transport costs have to be considered. Has he got any company yet to say to him that they agree with that statement, and that they will not guarantee to produce and distribute anywhere in the country as long as they are allowed to produce in one factory, at the prices that will be charged in the case of the three factories? I do not think that there is a single undertaker in the way of cement manufacture who would accept the Minister's view on that. If that view is correct, why only three units? Surely, you would lower your transport costs if you had ten of them scattered at different points.

You could not get it produced at all.

I wonder why? Because you would get below the manufacturing unit. If we go back along that line, will the Minister deny this simple proposition: that if you get one factory to produce all the cement required in this country, you can produce it far more cheaply than you would get the same amount of cement produced in three factories? What is the necessity for decentralisation in this industry? If you want to decentralise industry, is not the best way to say that one industry in which the production unit is the whole country should be located, say, in Munster and that in regard to some other industry where the production unit is the whole country, Munster should not get that but it should be diverted to Leinster or Connacht? Why, if we are going to have decentralised industry, should we have every industry decentralised? Surely that is not part of "the plan."

How much does the Minister now recant of the statements he made, when the last Bill was before us, with as much assurance as he has made any statement to-day? We were told then that the Minister was enthused about making cement from imported clinker, that by far the biggest amount of labour went in the factory as from the clinker stage to the production of cement and that very little went in the raising of the raw material to the clinker stage. That was the statement on which the last measure was founded. Has the Minister discovered that that was a mistake? That statement was made with as much assurance as any statement the Minister made here to-day. We were told also, with regard to costs, that it was the raising of the raw material for cement that was making the cost so much. We are now going to add that on. At the time that the Minister was speaking of getting cement manufactured in this country from imported clinker, he told us most specifically that the final product would be sold here at a price equal to that at which the best quality Belgian cement was being imported and sold in this country. Apparently, that cannot be done now.

Quite the contrary.

If we take the imported clinker side of the question, while we would get most of the employment and while we would get spent in the country most of the money involved, we would get cement sold here at very much the same price at which imported good quality Belgian cement was being sold. Now, to get the smaller amount of employment added and to get the advantage of the smaller amount of money expended, we are going to meet the difference between the price at which Belgian cement can be imported and sold here and this, what I describe as, "doubling-up" on the price of cement. Is that an economic proposition if the Minister sticks to the old figures? I think that the old figures are entirely wrong. I never got justification for them. If we are to take the Minister as speaking accurately on the occasion the first Cement Bill was introduced and as speaking accurately to-day, that is the proposition. That is the addition we are making to-day.

The Minister has found foreign firms ready to finance and to operate cement factories here capable of producing cement at a reasonable price. What is a reasonable price? The whole thing turns on that. When we asked previously about the same reasonable price in another Bill we were told it was the same price as that at which first-class cement could be sold here. Now it is not that. We have been getting the benefit of dumped cement at less than half the price at which cement is available to the people where it is manufactured, and we are going to pay the difference and to get that price raised by degrees over a period of 18 months, so that the impact will not be too great at once, and the revenue will get some of the benefit of the price-cutting war that is going on outside. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. As the Minister mentioned in an answer to Deputy Good's question, while the revenue would not be a great deal, it is clear that Part III of the Bill is to bring up the price at which sales are effected in this country to the world price. It is the first time any Minister appeared in this House proposing that when we get something outside too cheap we are going to raise it above that.

Why did you put a tariff on butter?

I am taking the Minister's line that we are not going to pay any more for things manufactured here. Tariffs being an imperfect form of getting money, things are going to be produced here as cheaply as outside and we always have hopes of an export market being secured. What nonsense. Flour, of course, has taken another turn, the excuse being, after the argument, that the millers would be prevented from over-charging. That has gone in face of the facts. The new answer is that we are getting the leavings of the flour manufactured on the other side. Here, there is the proposition that the aim of the Ministry is that the price retail here is to be the world price. We are asked to do that without a clear idea of the number of people to be put into employment, the type of employment it will be, and without a clear idea of what the accumulated costs of building—and the use there is for cement— in this country will amount to. Maximum prices have been spoken of. I asked if it was fixed prices, and I was told "yes," irrespective of labour costs, irrespective of power costs. Surely not. Then it is not a fixed price.

A calculated maximum price.

Calculated. If power costs are so much and labour costs so much and if labour demands an increase or if power is not given at a particular rate the costs go up. Are there any more?

Surely there are four costs. Then there is transport in the different areas. They could not be called fixed maximum prices if there are so many variants. We have no indication even of the variants of maximum prices at the moment. I do not know what has driven the Minister to this plan, because he has in his Department a scheme which will not involve the amount of capital that, I understand, this will involve. He aims, at least, at three units. They are to be big industrial undertakings, and would not be less, as far as their actual resources are concerned, than £400,000. That means £1,200,000. I know of one scheme which was certainly there for the Minister to consider, where it was considered an extravagant amount of capital to put three-quarters of a million into the manufacture of cement for the whole country.

Three hundred thousand tons.

Two hundred and fifty thousand tons. I know of another which spoke of working up to the 250,000 ton mark, which was only thought to involve about £350,000 of capital or more if they produced their own power, but only about that amount. The power was to be sold to them in this country. Why have we got to the stage that there must be three units of £400,000 capital in each?

Four hundred thousand pounds is a rough figure.

The Minister should not say that. That is the figure he took. He made the case because he wanted to increase the strength of his argument about big industrial concerns.

It will be about that.

One million two hundred thousand pounds for the production of cement. There was at least one offer to produce and to work up to the 300,000 mark—certainly to 250,000 tons—at less than three-quarters of a million, and that was considered as being an extravagant amount of capital, and was criticised for the reason that so much money would be involved, as well as the interest that would have to be paid. What has made the difference? Is it the division of the three units? If so, we must get some economic calculations on the three units. What is the special advantage of three units, if that is going to involve so much extra capital and not give more labour, or if it means extra final costs? Again, it may be some of those soft-hearted foreign capitalists who want to come to this country to destroy themselves, one of those people who can expend three-quarters of a million on a single cement plant, or another who would spend less than half a million on a single cement plant to supply this country, guaranteeing that they would be able to produce cement a great deal less than the present cost of Portland cement sold here, and not at a very big price over the cost of French and Belgian cement sold here. What is the Minister's final price in relation to the two prices quoted, even with fixed labour costs and power costs, for the purposes of the scheme? Has the Minister any comparison?

There is definitely an offer involving less capital, and therefore involving less recoupment of capital, for the privilege of supplying all the cement this country seems to want at a particular time, selling it finally at less than the cost of Portland cement brought in, or at a relatively small addition over the cost at which either Belgian or French cement is brought in. Why are these things being thrown aside for the sake of this scheme? This Bill is not one of which I speak particularly, but monopoly, or quasi-monopoly is what it sets out to achieve. There is not the slightest doubt that if there is going to be cement produced in this country, it is going to be produced in three zones, with the granting of a monopoly in each zone for the amount of cement manufactured. These are the only conditions in which cement will be manufactured in this country. It is useful to have this example, because it must bring out, as a basis of industrial endeavour, the limited purchasing power of a small community. That is what people always forget in any industrial proposals that are put before the country. It is good to have something that comes up here openly in daylight, which shows that if you want to get about 1,000 or 1,200 people employed, you have got to do it at such and such a sacrifice, and you have got to do it because of the economic law that we are only producing for a limited number of people. You cannot get costs down to what they would be for a bigger number, but even if we could, at the cost of half a million, and that it would rule in other economic proposals, it would not be a bad thing.

I think it will be admitted by everybody that a Bill of this kind is long overdue. Thousands of tons of cement are imported into this country, especially in recent years, when there has been a great deal of house building, and when many roads are constructed of concrete. Deputy McGilligan has devoted a great deal of his speech to the question of centralisation as against decentralisation. As far as I am concerned, I agree with the Minister that zones should be created in the country for the purpose of producing cement. That will be welcomed in all parts of the country. If factories established are all going to Dublin, then everybody is asking is anything at all to be done for the rest of the country. The constituency I represent is very much interested in this Bill, and has been agitating that the cement works there should be brought into use. There is no need to set out the history of these works, which manufactured cement for many years. The Dublin Corporation took a great deal of that cement, from time to time. Immediately prior to the closing down of these works on the last occasion, arrangements were made through the Local Government Department whereby the Dublin Corporation decided to give a ten per cent. preference to that Wexford cement in order to keep the works open. The Commissioners, who were appointed after the Corporation was dissolved, knocked that arrangement on the head, and that is the reason why the cement works at Drinagh were closed down. I am now submitting that Drinagh is worthy of consideration.

Will it get it?

I cannot tell you, but I say that Drinagh is deserving of consideration. Ever since the Fianna Fáil Government came into office people have been looking forward to see the Drinagh works opened. I do not say that the Minister made any promise, as far as these works are concerned, but prominent supporters of his Party, in my constituency, very definitely said before the 1932 General Election, that within three months after the election the Fianna Fáil Government would see that the Drinagh Cement Works were opened. That statement was very definitely made. As soon as this Bill was introduced and people read it in my constituency they felt genuinely alarmed to find that as far as Drinagh Factory was concerned it has been left out of the picture. Still, no matter how we may read the Bill, there is some possibility that Drinagh will get a chance. The factory is there; there is plenty of material there, and the men are there, and I suggest to the Minister that when he is in consultation with people who apply for licences to establish factories in this country, Drinagh should be kept to the forefront.

There were 60 men employed in that works before it was closed down. The majority of these 60 men are unemployed since, and I think the Minister should give these men consideration. A great deal of hardship prevails in the district, resulting from the unemployment which came about through the closing down of these works. I ask the Minister, as I have been asked to ask him, and as all Deputies from Wexford have been requested to ask him, to see that special consideration should be given to Drinagh in view of the fact that the skilled men are there and have been working at cement manufacture for many years. I was speaking quite recently to a representative of the Cement Marketing Company and he told me that his company were prepared to re-open the Drinagh works and give employment to 100 men provided the Government were prepared to permit them to build a works in Dublin and afford them protection. That is a proposal that should get very special consideration. It is a very serious thing for the people of my constituency. Every Deputy who represents Wexford knows that he is bombarded with resolutions for the last 18 months, and especially since this Bill was introduced in reference to the claims of Drinagh.

I hope the Minister will consider this matter sympathetically. As far as the question of tariffs is concerned between this and the establishment of the works, the Minister talked of five per cent. increase in the cost of housing. That would be nearly 3d. per week in the rent of a £200 house.

I said 5 per cent.

Oh, that is a different matter. I would urgently impress upon the Minister the necessity of giving special consideration to Drinagh. People are looking to the Government to do something to relieve the hardships that prevail there in consequence of the closing down of the factory, and I trust the Minister will do all that is needful in that direction.

I would like some additional information from the Minister, if possible, in connection with this Bill. He spoke of a market of 200,000 tons. I take it that is a potential market for the Saorstát calculated in a very rough and ready way. If that is so I would like to ask him what are the importations at three or four of the different ports—Dublin, Cork and some other places—because I think that would have an important bearing upon the question. The Minister spoke of an economic unit of 100,000 tons—of a factory producing 100,000 tons per year. I would say if anything that that was on the low side. The Minister spoke about allowing cement to be imported to places where cement cannot be supplied from cement-producing units. That is rather difficult to understand. I would like to ask the Minister how he proposes to arrive at a decision because I take it that cement can be sent from one producing unit all over the country. It is a question of transport cost. Is not that so? I would like to ask the Minister what his idea is as to what would be the governing factor. If for the sake of argument a cement unit was established in the East what would be the formula or how would he arrive at a decision, supposing he got an application from a person to import cement in another part of the country? I think it is important that that should be known. The Minister has spoken of getting a guarantee about a maximum price from a manufacturing firm which would be prepared to produce cement in this country. I should like to ask the Minister what the maximum price is. Deputy McGilligan has apparently elicited the fact that there would be a question of wages, transport and fuel costs, operating on a sliding scale in altering that maximum price. I should like to ask the Minister is he prepared to tell us what the maximum price exactly means. Is that at the factory or what is it? It is a very important point.

Leaving aside the question of manufacturing, I take it that the Minister will not introduce the system of licensing until he sees that cement is going to be produced in this country at some no distant date. It seems to me to be an extraordinary thing that cement imported from foreign countries is going to be subject to a sort of sliding tariff, according to the country in which it is produced. I do not know whether it is desirable to introduce discrimination as between one foreign country and another, but perhaps the Minister will tell us what the justification for that is. The Minister has stated that if the price of cement is increased, I think an increase of 4/- a ton was the figure he mentioned, it would only increase the cost of a house by 5. I am not in a position to state whether that is so or not, but it occurs to me that there is nothing more urgent in this country at the present time than the housing question. When houses have to be erected by giving subsidies, surely the cheaper any materials can be brought in the better. I think any increase in cost would mean that either additional rents would come to be charged or additional subsidies would have to be granted. Of course the Minister may argue that this is only one factor in a house, but it is a most undesirable factor to introduce, especially when the costs of houses are so high at the present time.

On the Fourth Part of the Bill the Minister has spoken about an importer having to give a return showing what amount of cement he is going to bring in from a particular country over a particular period, and what the quality of that cement is going to be. I should like to remind the Minister that the position of people applying for licences is most difficult. They have to make elaborate calculations, which are liable to be falsified, and even if the Minister can deal with that licence immediately there is a grave danger that, where a contract is entered into and shipping has to be arranged, even a delay of a few hours may occasionally mean the loss of a market. I should like specially to urge that on the Minister. If he can see some less cumbrous form to inflict on the section of the community who would be bringing in cement under the system of licences, he ought to try and do away with the question of licences altogether. There is no doubt that, first of all, his Department would have to spend a great deal of time examining the applications; the licensees would also have to spend a very considerable time going into details and furnishing returns, in which they could probably more profitably be employed in looking after their business.

The Minister has spoken about the maximum price at which cement will be sold. I should like to ask him if he proposes to market the cement through the ordinary channels, or if he proposes more or less to short-cut that arrangement. I think that as regards the 100 men that Deputy Corish hopes will be employed in Drinagh—he said there were 60 employed there formerly; it is only an approximate figure, but it will do for the purpose of illustration—in the production of the cement, if the ordinary channels are to be short-circuited you may find that you have displaced as many men on the quays of the port. It may be a question of taking something out of one pocket and putting it into another. Employment will not have benefited, and the cost of cement will be enormously increased to the people who use it. The question of the distribution of cement will be a very difficult one, and I am sure the Minister will give some more information as to how he proposes to do this under the present scheme and from economic units.

I rise to associate myself with what Deputy Corish has stated on this matter of the cement industry. I do not wish to go into the niceties of the question of distribution or anything like that. I do not consider that I am sufficiently competent to enter on that side of the question, but I should like for a brief moment to urge on the Minister if he possibly can to include Drinagh in any scheme he has at the back of his mind for the production and distribution of cement. We have in Drinagh an old-established industry, with a tradition behind it, with plenty of raw material, both in labour and natural resources. We have not there to establish a new industry of any kind; we have an old one waiting to be developed. There was one remark made by Deputy Corish to which I take slight exception, namely, his remark with regard to the election promises made by Fianna Fáil supporters in the recent campaign. We know that remarks made in this House very often are not to be taken seriously. Neither, I suggest, are election promises to be taken seriously or in their entirety when made by any and every possible supporter of a Party. I never heard any reputable supporter of Fianna Fáil in the last campaign—and I know and little about it because I went through it—state that Fianna Fáil would open the Drinagh cement works in two or three months after the establishment of the new Government. I hesitate to think that any reputable politician, if, indeed, any reputable politician be left, would hazard his reputation in a prophecy of that kind.

It would be a costly promise.

If we could translate it into concrete action in the present instance I would be well satisfied. Deputy McGilligan, who, I am sorry to say, is not here now, because he adds considerably to the gaiety of nations by his contributions to debates, said in a somewhat exasperated aside in which he interrupted Deputy Corish—"Do you assume that Drinagh will get any consideration?" I do not know what authority Deputy McGilligan has for assuming that Drinagh will not get consideration. Probably Deputy McGilligan's assumption that it will not get consideration will prove as baseless as some other assumptions to which he has given expression in this House on other occasions. I do not wish to take up the time of the House further, but I would suggest that the Minister, in formulating any scheme for the production and distribution of cement, should bear in mind the south-eastern area. By doing so he will confer a benefit on that industry and allied industries down there. As I have said, we have an old established industry there. It is not new in any sense of the word. You have the raw material both in the men and in the lime, which is the basic foundation of cement. I hope the Minister will see his way, if possible, to include Drinagh in his scheme. As far as distribution is concerned, difficulties are made very often only to be surmounted, and I am sure the Minister will surmount that difficulty as he surmounted others.

The Minister, in his opening speech, said that cement could not be produced here as cheaply as imported cement, and I thoroughly believe him in that. For years we have been thinking about manufacturing cement in County Dublin, but after expert, long and careful consideration we discovered that cement could not be manufactured as cheaply in Ireland as in Belgium or Portland. It required a protection of 6/- per ton. Taking it that our total requirements would be 200,000 tons, the increase of 6/- per ton over the imported article would amount to £60,000. For argument sake, let us say that in the three units there will be 300 workers employed, and allowing for a wage of £3 each per week, their total wages will amount to £45,000. That will leave a deficit of £15,000 to be made up by the people who buy cement. It is for us to consider whether that is a business proposition. These are the only remarks I have to make, but I should like to face facts. Cement is being sold here to-day at about 30/- per ton. I have an idea that it cannot be produced in Ireland less than 36/- per ton. I say the builder and the purchaser of cement will have to pay that 6/- extra per ton. Certainly I agree that we should start industries to give employment, but can we do it at such a loss to the taxpayer and the people in general, who have to purchase the article we produce? That is the point I would like the Minister to consider in connection with this Bill.

I was interested in hearing what the Minister had to say on this Bill this afternoon. I am always interested to hear of new manufactures in this State as one interested in building and in the industries of the State generally, but the primary consideration in setting up a business is to see that the figures are satisfactory. The Minister was exceedingly shy this afternoon about giving any figures on which we might form any very reliable estimate. I do not like to criticise the Minister too harshly. He has been an exceedingly busy man lately, but I think, with all respect to his Department, it was due from the Department to advise the Minister of the effect which this increase in the cost of cement will have on building. I need not tell the Minister—he has the information before him—that 90 out of every 100 houses erected in the State at the moment are built of cement. Cement is the basic commodity used in building at the moment. Knowing the urgency of the housing problem, it is very essential that we should know before we proceed with this measure what the effect of it will be on housing. In every quarter of this State there is an urgent call for more and more houses.

Is a cement house a good house?

I will leave that to the Deputy.

Mr. Kelly

I am asking the Deputy. The Deputy is a builder. I do not know anything about it.

The Deputy with his great knowledge and his long experience in the Dublin Corporation, I do not think can come here and say he does not know anything about housing.

Mr. Kelly

I am as simple as a child, I assure you.

The Deputy is a very innocent man in his own estimation. At all events I think it is only due to the House, in view of the importance and the urgency of building, that we should know the effect of this Bill on the building of houses. I hope before this Bill advances through its other stages, that that information will be forthcoming because it is exceedingly important and, as I have said, exceedingly vital. I need not remind the Minister also that every effort is made by the Department of Local Government to keep down the cost of houses to the lowest possible figure. We hear widespread complaints, not alone from workers in the city occupying these houses but from every corner of the country, as to the high cost and the high rent of the houses that these poor people have to occupy. This Bill will penalise all these people. They will have to pay additional rents for their houses because, as the Minister has admitted to-day, this is going to increase the cost of building. Let there be no doubt about it. Everything that increases the cost of building is certain to inflate the rents which the tenants of those houses will have to pay for them. That will be quite clear even to the Deputy who comes here from the Dublin Corporation—Deputy Kelly. I think he will agree with me on that and I say that that is a point on which the Minister ought to have data and information for the House.

Leaving that aside for the moment— that information, I take it, will be forthcoming and, when it is, we will be able to deal with it—let us deal with another aspect of the problem. We are anxious to set up industries in this State in order to give much needed employment. That is the object of setting up additional industries and, looking at it from that point of view, let us take one or two figures from the Minister's statement. He has told us that in each of these factories there will be between 400 and 500 men employed and that they will be practically all nationals. There will be two of these factories and that means that 1,000 men will get employment. The output of these two factories, the Minister estimates, will be 200,000 tons a year. He does not tell us exactly what the increased cost of the cement is going to be when manufactured at home. I have heard various estimates as to the increased cost when those markets are closed which supply cement to this State at a very low figure at the moment, but the estimate that is generally accepted by the trade is that the immediate effect of manufacturing cement at home will be that the cement will cost £1 per ton additional. I think anybody who has inquired into the problem will agree that that is not an excessive figure. It is not my figure. The figure has been given to me. If we take 200,000 tons, which is the Minister's figure, and take the fact that cement is going to cost us £1 per ton additional when manufactured at home, it means that the State is going to pay £200,000 per annum additional.

In other words, that is going to be shoved on to whatever cement is used for, and on to housing in particular. Going a little further, the Minister tells us that 1,000 employees will get employment. That means that every employee in these two cement works is going to cost the State £200 a year. That is on the basis of giving employment to 1,000 people, but my advice is that 600 people is the outside number that will get employment in these factories and, taking that figure, and the £200,000 a year cost to the State, each man will cost the State £333 per annum. That is the Minister's proposal. We are going to get employment for 600 additional men but at what cost?—£333 per man. The housing industry, which is in such need of every stimulus that can be given to it at the moment and in need of every economy that can be devised in order to keep down the costs of housing and, thereby, keep down the rents which these people are called on to pay, uses 90 per cent., I am quite satisfied, of the cement that is imported into this State at the moment, so that housing is going to be called on to pay 90 per cent. of this £200,000 a year.

I do not want to exaggerate the figures. I only want to take the figures as they appear to me as a business man and, if any Deputy was in my position, he would take these figures in this way and examine them. I say to any of you practical business men, is this a business proposition? No man in this Dáil, I can say, sincerely and honestly, is more anxious than I am to establish industries in this State but we must count the cost, and, having counted the cost, is this House satisfied that this proposal is worth the cost? Is it fair, at the moment, to impose on these people, who are anxious to get these houses and in urgent need of houses, a further burden of £200,000 a year? I say, no, and I want to see something, in view of these figures and in view of these facts, that I cannot see in this Bill before I will vote for it. There are other factors in the Bill which one would like to discuss but, until I am satisfied by somebody that these figures I have given to the House are inaccurate, misleading and cannot be substantiated, I will leave it at that and deal with the other part of the subject later.

The penitential season is now over. I sat here during Lent and accepted all the speeches that were made from the opposite benches, and from the Centre Party Benches in the most penitential spirit, because there was no fast, and I thought we might as well do something for the good of our souls. That season is over now, and I am not content to sit here and listen every day in the week to a series of speeches directed towards the one thing—that nothing good can come from these benches. Everything produced by the Government meets with the same treatment, and I do not know, if I were a Minister, what Bill I should introduce to please the Deputies opposite except a Bill to establish a wax-works, because they might all believe that they would be modelled for the purpose of exhibition.

Deputy Good, as well as being a fine type of citizen, if he will allow me to say so, is a practical man in the building line, and, when I asked him if the cement house was a good house, he did not give a very satisfactory reply. He went on to say that this Bill will increase the rents that have to be paid by the poor people in Dublin and in other towns who are waiting anxiously for increased housing accommodation. We learn from Deputy Corish that the Dublin Corporation supported the Wexford Cement Works for many years. I well remember—it must be over twenty-five years ago— when, under the influence of the Sinn Féin teaching when it had early got itself established in the Dublin Corporation, we were able to give orders then to the cement works in Wexford in order to keep out Belgian cement that we knew was subsidised by the Belgian Government and could, therefore, be easily brought into this country much cheaper than it could be made here. The Dublin Corporation succeeded in supporting that enterprise, and now we learn here to-night that when the Commissioners were appointed instead of the Corporation they refused to support it, as a result of which the works had to close down.

The Wexford Cement Works were closed down twenty years before the Commissioners were appointed.

When Deputy Corish comes back—I am sorry he is not here at the moment—we will try to find out if what Deputy Good states is right. I do not think the Deputy is right. In fact, I am perfectly certain he is not.

And I am equally positive that I am right.

Mr. Kelly

Very well, we will leave it at that until the Wexford Deputy comes back. I understand that he is Mayor of Wexford. Is not that right?

A Deputy

Yes.

Mr. Kelly

Very well, he should have first-hand knowledge then. What happened in this matter was that the Commissioners decided that they would make a great name for themselves, and they ripped up the pavements—the Deputy need not shake his head at me, or if he has to shake it he need not shake it so solemnly—they decided that they would make a great name for themselves by altering the appearance of Dublin, and they ripped up all the well-paved streets of Dublin and re-paved them—if I can use the term— with foreign cement. That was what they did on Dublin, and it was dear old dirty Dublin no longer! It was clean, lovely Dublin! Look at the lovely streets! Look at the beautiful roads! All these roads were made with foreign cement and that was the effect—that they deliberately closed down the Wexford works to give work to the foreigner. Is that to their credit? When they established themselves well, they started their building career in this way, that all the houses built for the poor people should be bought by them, and consequently the rent was too excessive. Working men are now asked to pay from 14/1 to 17/6 a week. How can they do it? I understand that most of these houses are made of foreign cement also.

The Dublin Corporation is restored now, but with nothing like its full powers. They will come later on, and I hope everybody listening to me will take notice of that. Somebody has interrupted me, but I did not catch the interruption. Maybe it does not matter. The Dublin Corporation have in front of them a very elaborate housing programme, and they have already built many houses—Deputy Good will know that—they have built 700 houses in Cabra, and they are letting these houses, each of which is a three-roomed house with both hot and cold water and every accommodation necessary for a decent workingman's home, at 7/6 a week. That is a big difference. But we would rather see these houses built with home cement than with foreign stuff, and I think that is the practical way to turn our attention not only for the provision of houses, but for the creation of employment in this country.

Is the Deputy aware that the ratepayers in Dublin are paying half the rent of these houses?

Mr. Kelly

That is not so. The Deputy is not a very good financier. I hope he is a better builder than he is a financier. The Deputy knows that it is not so.

I do not know that it is not so.

Mr. Kelly

I do not know why the Deputy says that, but I know that extraordinary things are said over in the atmosphere of that side of the House. We know that there is a deficiency, so called, in the housing estimate each year. But it must be remembered that the figures taken into account are figures including the repayment of capital and interest on the loans. If these were deducted out of the estimates it would be found that there would be a profit to the ratepayers of Dublin. We, in the Dublin Corporation, did not have and Civic Week. Deputy Good was interested in that performance with which the Commissioners went on. Deputy Good will remember the gondolas on the Liffey where the ladies were——

The Deputy has a much better memory than I.

Mr. Kelly

It is only three years ago and the Deputy should remember that far back.

I would remind the Deputy that there is nothing about Civic Week or about three years ago in this Bill, nor is there anything about the prices or the rents of houses.

Mr. Kelly

I quite admit that I am not capable of talking about cement, but special references were made here to the Dublin Corporation. Remarks were made by one speaker and especially by Deputy Good as to the cost of houses, and these are cement houses.

A Deputy

Are they good houses?

Mr. Kelly

I think they are. I would prefer to see brick houses, but I am told by those who say they know a lot about it that the cement houses are good enough. The idea of advertising Dublin at that time three years ago by Civic Week, with gondolas on the Liffey and King Brian Boru's bird cage on O'Connell Bridge, was all eye-wash, because the main concern of the Dublin citizens was to secure decent houses for the inhabitants of Dublin.

That is why I am so anxious that this Bill will be accepted by the members here generally who are interested in social questions. Deputy Good undoubtedly is interested in social questions. I wonder at him making some of the observations that he made here this evening. Probably, he is not in a pleasant humour. He is generally very amiable and nice, but to-night I am afraid he was a bit ratty.

I am sorry if I said anything unkind to the Deputy.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy said nothing unkind to me. I have never had any reason to think that the Deputy would do so. But the Deputy could easily give us more information regarding building operations and cement than any man in this Chamber or than any man outside it. Instead of doing so, he reads out an alarming set of figures as to what it will cost and so on, when he could say "these houses, which will be built with the products of these factories that the Minister proposes to erect, will be good houses, will be built cheaply, will give satisfaction to the Corporation and every other body in Ireland which can start building them, and will be satisfactory right through." Could the Deputy not have said that?

I have already said it is not so. The Deputy would not expect me to say what is not true.

Mr. Kelly

Very well, I am sorry for that. I certainly am not the man to tempt the Deputy to tell an untruth. But there is a maxim which I give to him and which I give to other Deputies here. It was given to me a long time ago by a very able Dublin physician. He was not diagnosing any complaint that I had at the time, but he took an interest in my welfare generally, and he said to me "Never tell a lie, but only tell the truth sometimes." Deputy Good should only just remember that maxim in his future speeches and it will do.

I am sure that every Deputy will claim that a cement factory should be erected in his constituency. I want, however, to point out that some years ago experts visited Limerick which I represent, and declared that it was ideally situated for a cement factory. We have a good transport service there, railway and canal, and the site is a very good one. I am sure that the Minister will remember Limerick when he is choosing the sites for these factories.

Deputy McGilligan, in the course of his remarks, expressed the opinion that all mankind outside the membership of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party is mad, and that the madness of mankind outside the Cumann na nGaedheal Party was the sole explanation of the various measures adopted in other countries and in this country for the purpose of ensuring the production nationally of goods which may be purchased cheaper abroad. It is good to know, however, that there is an oasis of sanity in the desert of lunacy and that it is situated in this country. It may be that all mankind is mad except the members of Cumann na nGaedheal, or the reverse may be true. I want, however, to put forward for the consideration of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party certain considerations which they appear to have left out of account. At first sight it does seem extraordinary that we should propose to put a restriction on the importation of cement here when it is being supplied to us from abroad at a price less than it costs to produce it, at a price probably less than we could ever produce it for ourselves. Those who read trading and shipping statistics with an accountant's mind, dividing the quantities shown into the total cost set out, getting an average price, and basing all their arguments upon that average price will, of course, be forced to the same conclusion as Deputy McGilligan, that it is foolish and mad to attempt to produce here what we can get more cheaply from abroad. I submit, however, that in any proper system of national accountancy we must add to the price that we pay for the imported produce the cost of maintaining in idleness the people who might have been employed here in its production, and, in addition, the loss of national wealth that is occasioned by the fact that the goods imported must be paid for in any case and that the wealth that goes out to pay for them is wealth lost to the country, whereas expenditure incurred in production here is of perpetual benefit to the country and constitutes wealth retained at home. If we follow Deputy McGilligan's argument to its logical conclusion, it gets us to a much madder position than he ever contemplated, because if there is any sense in his logic when applied to cement there must also be sense in it when applied to any other commodity. If it is foolish for us to produce cement because other people are prepared to supply it to us cheaper than we can make it for ourselves, why should we also be trying to produce beef, butter, milk, eggs, clothing, boots, or anything else? There is not a single commodity which under modern conditions we cannot get supplied from abroad cheaper than we can produce it for ourselves. Applying the Deputy's logic, our sole concern should be to produce nothing, to sit here in absolute idleness waiting for these other countries, seeking markets for their surplus products, to supply us for cash or credit with the things we need and, in due course, there will exist here what members of Cumann na nGaedheal would apparently regard as the ideal situation, in which nothing was produced and everything was imported.

We have, however, decided upon a different policy. We have decided to secure the production here of everything which can be reasonably produced, having regard to the facilities available, the size of our market, and the raw materials we possess, and cement is one of these things. All this talk we have had about the price of cement is based upon misunderstandings and miscalculations of several kinds. Cement can be produced in this country as cheaply as in any other country. There is no reason why it should not be. As I have said, we have the raw materials in abundance. We have the raw materials situated in the most suitable places and under the most suitable circumstances. Factories for the production of cement are being established every week of the year in some part of the world as economic propositions of a size less than the size that would be required to supply the whole of the requirements of this State. Therefore, our market is one large enough to justify production on an economic basis. I assume, however, that we cannot produce cement at less than we can buy it at the moment. That is because cement is being sold in this country, owing to competition for the market here, at a price about equal to half the price charged to persons using it in the country of origin.

Deputy Good made a number of mysterious calculations. They sounded very impressive but were all based upon something that somebody said to him. Somebody told him that cement produced here would probably be £1 per ton dearer than cement is at present. On that statement he built up his whole case. He multiplied the £1 by 200,000, substracted something from it, divided something into it, took his first thoughts away from it, and in that way told us that the whole scheme would cost anything from £200,000 to £330,000 additional every year. But the whole argument was based upon something somebody told him, to wit, that cement produced here was going to be £1 per ton dearer than it is at present. It is going to be nothing of the kind. The Deputy will be glad to hear that within the last six months I have had in my office representatives of every important cement manufacturing company in Europe and not one of them suggested cement was going to be £1 per ton dearer than we are getting it at present. They all gave different estimates. One of them, by no means the least important of them, expressed the opinion, and put the opinion in writing, that cement can be produced and sold ex-factory here at a price somewhat less than the 30/- per ton mentioned by Deputy O'Connor. They may be wrong in that, but I am assuming that the increase, if any, which must take place in the price of cement consequent upon the commencement of production here will not be more than will effect an increase of 5 per cent. in the price of a cement house. It may be less; it may be there will be no increase at all. Let us hope so. I think there is some reason to assume that that is so. Our proposal is that anybody who wants to make cement in this country shall put before us a proposition in detail, including in it the guaranteed price, whether it is the ex-factory or the delivered price, at which he is prepared to make cement available. From amongst the various proposals we will select one that appears to be in closest accord with the economic interests of the country.

With regard to location, I knew that this debate would not end without some reference to Drinagh. At one moment I thought I would be facing the appalling prospect that we would hear about every place in the country where cement might be manufactured. The fact is that there is practically no place in this country where the facilities necessary for the establishment of a cement works do not exist. The country is practically built on limestone and that is the main raw material required in the production of cement. Leaving transport facilities or other advantages out of account, there is practically no town or village in the Free State that could not make out a case for the establishment of a cement works, and I am quite certain they all will.

I am, however, protected. I am protected in the sense that they do not have to make out the case to me and that is one rather fortunate consideration. We have had to hear various cases made out concerning the establishment of beet works. In such cases we are faced with the position that we may have to make unpopular decisions in the matter of selecting sites, knowing well that we can please only a much smaller number than we can offend. In the case of cement I will not be called upon to make any such decision. Any group that thinks it can manufacture cement can make a proposition to my Department and indicate the price at which they propose to sell it. Our regard must be merely to ensure not that cement will be produced in a particular place, but that it will be produced under the circumstances and at the price that will be most favourable to the country.

The situation in Drinagh is well known and the only advice I have to give to Deputy Corish in that connection is advice that I think he probably does not need—that is, not to believe everything that is told him by the Cement Marketing Company.

It is only right to test it.

Deputy Dockrell suggested that it was not impossible that the number of men who would be employed in the production of cement here would be less than the number at present engaged on the distribution of imported cement. I think the Deputy has left one very obvious consideration out of account. The points of production are going to be very much fewer in number than the points of importation are at the moment. At present cement is imported through a very large number of ports and harbours in the Saorstát. The points of production will be two, three, or perhaps four. The difference between the number of points of production and the present points of importation means that there will be more distributing to be done, and if there is to be more distributing more men will be employed in distribution. These men may be employed in the future on railways or on cartage work rather than on dockyard work, but it is reasonable to assume that employment is not going to diminish but will inevitably increase if the same quantity of cement has to be distributed from a fewer number of centres.

It is intended that cement should be marketed in the same way as it is marketed at present. Very probably the price that will be regarded as the maximum guaranteed price will be an ex-factory price. It may be in certain cases companies will prefer the guaranteed price f.o.r., or delivered. I will act on the assumption that there will be a guaranteed ex-factory price and that transport costs will be additional to it. The ex-factory price will be, of course, lower than the delivered price. In that eventuality the business of distributing cement or supplying builders with cement will proceed as at present. The same firms will engage in the work in the future. The only difference will be that they will get deliveries ex-factory or at a railway station instead of at a port. It is not impossible that they will get deliveries at a port, because in recent years it has become the practice to deliver cement by sea rather than by rail. Whether that will be adopted here, I cannot say.

I have been asked about the nature of the guaranteed price that we have in mind. The price of cement must, of course, fluctuate in accordance with the ordinary fluctuations in the costs of certain other commodities. The three main things that have to be taken into account in fixing the cost of production of cement are labour, electric power and coal. When we talk about a guaranteed price we mean a price which is fixed on the assumption that the average level of wages will be at one figure, the average cost of electricity will be at another figure and the average cost of coal will be at a third figure. That guaranteed price will be liable to be increased or decreased as variations take place in any of these three costs. We will be in a position to know what variation in the rate of pay or the average cost of a unit of electricity or a ton of coal will justify an increase or a decrease in the price of a ton of cement. There will be no difficulty in fixing a sliding scale. The essential thing will be that before the price can be altered the State Department concerned will have to be satisfied that the conditions which justify the alteration in price have actually been created. That safeguard must necessarily be imposed because of the semi-monopoly position which is being created and under which the factories will operate.

I will repeat, in conclusion, that I propose to proceed on the assumption that this Bill, when it has got a Second Reading, will become law without substantial change. I may be wrong in that assumption, but I propose to act upon it for the purpose of ensuring that if it should become law there need be no unnecessary delay in getting the production of cement undertaken here. In other words, any firm that is contemplating making application for a licence under the Bill when it becomes law can take the necessary preliminary steps forthwith and bring their proposals to the attention of my Department so that they can be examined there.

I contemplate being in a position almost immediately the Bill becomes law to decide to whom licences are to be issued and to have them issued with the intention of having the first sod cut within three months of the passage of the Bill and production undertaken here before the end of next year. That may not be the usual procedure but I think I am justified in following it having regard to the fact that if the Bill does not become law licences cannot be issued. We can get the preliminary work of the examination done even though we cannot give effect to our decisions until the Bill has passed its Final Stage. I hope to have it put through, however, in order that we can deliver to builders Irish-made cement produced in consequence of it.

I understand that in my absence it was stated that the Drinagh cement factories had not been producing cement for a long number of years.

I was speaking about the cement on the Dublin wharfs and if the Deputy makes inquiries he will find that my statement is correct. With regard to what the Minister said about proceeding immediately with the licences, would he say if there is an urgency about this?

Licences for the factories.

What I want to know is when the Minister talks of licences under this Bill does he mean licences for the import of cement?

No, licences for the factories.

Will there be any licensing at all until we have the manufacture of cement settled?

Oh, yes.

For two reasons or I should really say for three reasons. One is that it is necessary to ensure that abnormal imports of cement do not take place immediately prior to the coming into production of the new cement factories. We do not want a position to be created in which the person erecting the factory would find the market flooded. That would create a position in which he would not be able to carry on production for perhaps six or 12 months following. That is one consideration. The other is the fact that the price of cement is uncertain and irregular at the moment and in consequence of that we want a stabilised price position as early as possible and to secure for the revenue whatever advantages can be secured for it arising out of these efforts to stabilise prices. That will be a gradual process so that nobody can contemplate an immediate imposition of any heavy tax.

The scheme for the licensing of cement imports is an essential part of the whole scheme because it is conceivable that we might have one unit producing much earlier than another unit. We might find one unit able to supply a part of the country but unable to supply other parts of the country. The licences would secure that cement could be imported into some ports but not into other ports. That would be for the purpose of keeping up the supplies for the whole country. I was talking some time ago about applications which we would have to examine on the basis of having licences issued when the Bill becomes law for the manufacture of cement. Parliamentary procedure requires a resolution to be moved before the Committee Stage which may have certain reactions on that position. Even if that were the case we would only bring new conditions into operation very gradually so as to have the least possible dislocation.

The licences to which I refer are licences for the import of cement. I am sure the Minister will agree that it will not be necessary to issue these licences until the factory is practically completed.

No, I do not agree with that.

May I point out to the Minister that it will take 18 months to build the factory? Now when the factory is completed it will have to go through the experimental stages. You cannot commence delivery at once. The cement must be tested so as to have an accurate knowledge of its quality. That was one of the difficulties always in the past but it does not arise in the case of the cement the quality of which is known. Any licensing for the importing of cement will mean, as I understand the Minister's proposition, that the State is going to benefit by means of the import duty on these licences. Will the Minister tell me who is going to pay that import duty? I want to say that 90 per cent of the cement is going into housing. That import duty is going to mean extra cost in the building of houses and that cost will have to be paid ultimately by the unfortunate tenant. The State is going to benefit by that expense on the tenant. Is not that so?

My answer to that is that cement at present is coming in at an uneconomic price.

But the tenants are getting the benefit of it.

The price may be changed to-morrow.

At the moment the tenant is getting the benefit which arises from the import of cheap cement. Let there be no misunderstanding on that point.

Question.

I want to repeat again that the tenant is getting the benefit of the cheap cement.

I quite agree with Deputy Good on that.

There can be no question about it. I challenge any Deputy to prove that that is not so.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 44.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keely, Séamus F.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doyle, Feadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Kent, William Rice.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.
Committee Stage fixed for Thursday, 11th May.
Top
Share