Was the new Bill circulated?
Cement (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Money Resolution. - Cement (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Committee Stage.
Yes, this morning. The amendments to the Bill were previously circulated and they are now contained in the Bill.
The Bill is identical with a Bill that went through the Second Reading and Committee Stages already except that Part IV has been added.
And this was circulated in the form of amendments previously.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Industry and Commerce;
the word "cement" means Roman cement, Portland cement or any other hydraulic cement;
the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act.
(2) Each of the following persons shall for the purposes of this Act be a national of Saorstát Eireann, that is to say:—
(a) a person born in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now comprised in Saorstát Eireann;
(b) a person who at the relevant time is and for not less than five consecutive years immediately preceding that time has been ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann.
I want to raise a question. The purpose of this Bill is to empower the Minister to restrict the import of cement. In the course of the Second Stage of the Bill as originally introduced, the Minister foresaw that the operation of this Bill would result in a substantial increase in the price of cement to the consumers. However, he said that he intended to ascertain from various manufacturers the price at which they are prepared to manufacture cement in this country, and that whoever makes the best proposition to him will get the licence to manufacture it. I want to ask the Minister what form his question to those manufacturers who are looking for a licence to manufacture cement will take? Is he going to set them a standard of quality for the cement, and when he asks them at what price they are going to supply the cement are they to state this quality? Is he going to lay down a minimum standard?
Has the Deputy read the Bill?
I have, very carefully, and I want to ask the Minister that question, because nowhere does the answer to it appear in the Bill.
Would the Deputy read Section 12?
I am not asking the Minister as to the powers he is taking, but I am asking him to tell this House what are the specifications he is going to demand. What is the use of the Minister coming in here and saying blandly: "I am going to stipulate and find at what price they are going to supply cement to the Irish public"? Of course, they are going to supply Irish cement to the public at a price, but it may be cement of such a kind as has been used in this country already; cement of a kind which no reputable contractor would think of using. My point is this: that these people may produce cement at a certain price, and then produce a gold medal cement—"our particularity"—for which an extra charge of 5/- a ton will be made on the ground that it is an article of superlative excellence. It will be understood that if they want common or garden cement it will be there at the price stipulated. If they want luxurious cement they must pay 5/- a ton more. Has the Minister in mind any specification on which he is going to insist as to the quality at which he will insist on the cement being delivered to the public? Has he in mind any contract price? Unless he gives that guarantee all the talk of inviting certain people to compete for licences is worth nothing at all.
I should like to know from the Minister if he is now in a position to tell the House how much extra employment will be given as a result of the establishment of cement factories in this country. I think on the Second Stage of the first Cement Bill, which the Minister produced here, he was not quite clear himself as to the number of people likely to be employed. I think it was admitted and it was recognised by most people that as a result of the passing of this Bill and the setting up of a factory or factories in this country, cement would be increased in price by at least 50 per cent. over and above what it is to-day. The Minister, I notice, smiles at that.
A concrete smile.
There is one thing about the Minister, unlike some of his colleagues, his smile is not a fixed smile. He has, if I may say so with all respect, a sense of humour. It is a great pity that some of his colleagues have not got it.
Mr. Crowley
Cement wash.
There is. I suggest, more than the question of price. Supposing there is a factory in Clare or Limerick. Apart from the question of price per ton at the factory, I should like to know if the Minister can give us any idea of what the cost per ton will be delivered to the retailers say, at Nenagh, Clonmel or Thurles, from Limerick or Clare. That is a very important point. The Minister knows very well that the question of transport, transport costs, and the whole question of freight has given him more worry than anybody else in this House. I suggest to him that there are three points on which the House and the country are entitled to be satisfied: (1) the question of the quality of the article produced here; (2) the question of the amount of employment given; (3) the question of price as compared with the price at which cement can be purchased to-day. I am not at all opposed to this Bill, and I hope it will lead to the establishment of a number of factories that will be able to produce cement at least as good as that which we are importing at present. I hope, particularly, that it will give decent and permanent employment to a large number of men. But, while I am anxious for the establishment of factories, I do not think that we ought to accept blindly, without getting from the Minister his views on the matter, and the authority upon which he bases these views, the extra cost to the consumer. I think it is admitted on all sides that there will be an extra charge, and the question is whether that will be justified, if I can use the word, by the amount of extra employment given. I should like also to know from the Minister, apart from the factory price, what the cost per ton delivered from, say, Clare or Limerick, or anywhere you like, to any given town in Tipperary or Waterford will be, and how the cost of transport will compare with the present cost of transport, apart from the cost of the article itself.
I cannot quite follow Deputy Dillon. When he was speaking, he reminded me of one of those circus turns where a man comes out and wrestles with himself. Deputy Dillon wrestled with himself for five minutes and then he knocked himself out. When he succeeded in doing all that, I was no wiser as to what he was trying to get at.
Is that the Minister's fault or mine?
The price of any article must be the price having regard to quality. The price has no significance unless it is related to quality. The price at which cement will be available here will vary according to the quality of the cement. When I say we hope to get cement produced here at a reasonable price, I mean cement of the good quality that is ordinarily specified in contracts at present. There is a British standard specification. There is no doubt, whatever, that we can produce any amount of cement here equal to, or better than, that British standard specification. The only question for us is whether we are going to insist upon a severer specification than the British. I think we will be able to get cement, certainly of the British standard specification, and probably better, produced here. As regards price, the position is, as I explained before, that we have the momentary advantage of being able to buy cement cheaper than any country in the world. If any Deputy wants to make some money I am going to tell him how to do it. He can import into Dublin British cement, pay duty on it, export it again to Liverpool, and sell it at 5/- per ton cheaper than British cement is sold there. I do not say you will do it twice, but you may succeed in doing it once if you try. Certainly, the present price in Great Britain and here would justify an operation of that kind. How long that situation will last nobody can say. Cement is being sold here from all countries at less than the cost of production, because it is practically the only free market in Europe for cement. That situation may end at any time. In fact, it is common knowledge, I think, that there are discussions and negotiations going on between the different producing firms at present which may mean that next week or next month the price situation will have terminated, if the firms concerned can reach an agreement. They have not succeeded in reaching an agreement heretofore, and we trust that they will not reach an agreement until we have our own cement.
As far as the price of our own cement is concerned, I can only say that I have now good reason to believe that the price at which cement will be available here will be, having regard to the quality, lower than the price that at present prevails in Great Britain. It will probably be higher than it is at present here, but not very substantially higher. The price, of course, that is important is the price at the point of consumption. It would be very little use to be able to get cement produced at some outlying place at a very low price if the cost of transporting it to where it is going to be used was likely to be very high. There is no reason, however, to believe that the factory cost of production will be higher than in any other country. I think we will be able to get the factory costs down as low here as they are in Great Britain, possibly even lower, because there are certain facilities and advantages here which may enable that to take place. It is then a question of distribution charges. Of course distribution charges will, perhaps, be somewhat higher than they are at present, because distribution will be taking place from two or, at most, three centres of production, while importation can take place at any point on the coast.
Apart from that consideration, which will have to be taken into account in determining the most suitable applications, from the point of view of the location of the proposed works, there is no reason to believe that the price of the cement will be higher than the British cement, if we were paying the British price for the cement. It will be possibly higher than cement is at present, but the present price is entirely abnormal. I have good reason to believe that we will be able to get Irish-made cement of a corresponding quality, available in all parts of the country, at a price that will compare favourably with the price in other countries, and that it will be only very slightly higher than the present price here. When I say all parts of the country, one has to have regard, of course, to what the market requirements are and what the productive capacity of the works to be established will be. It is quite possible that for a time there will be parts of the west or south where it will be more suitable to meet the cement requirements by imports in the future as in the past, until the total consumption here has grown to the point where the establishment of another factory, in addition to those to be created under this Bill, will appear to be justified, in which case again we will have production corresponding to consumption. In that eventuality, of course, there would be no change in price in those districts, but over the greater part of the country which will be served by the Irish mills we have every reason to believe that the price will be lower than the British price, and in no circumstances we can contemplate is it likely to be higher.
I must confess I am not satisfied with the Minister's statement.
The Deputy is probably aware that we are now discussing Section 3, which is a definition section. I have allowed a certain number of questions which are certainly not relevant to this section. I do not want that discussion prolonged but I will allow the Deputy to speak.
I quite agree with the ruling of the Chair, but I take it, from the point of view of getting the business through, this is an operative section, and the main discussion will be on that section?
If the House agrees to that.
Is this Part III or Section 3?
Section 3. Deputy Morrissey to resume.
It is not a question of the price at the factory; it is a question of price to the consumer that counts. The Minister has stated that when this Bill becomes effective, and when cement is being produced in this country, cement at least equal in quality to what is on the market at the moment in this country will be produced at a price very little higher —I think those were his words—than the present price. I should like to tie the Minister down. Will the Minister say that, quality for quality to the consumer, we will have cement at, say, 5 per cent, 10 per cent., 15 per cent., 20, 25 or 30 per cent. higher than it is at the moment, having regard to the transport difficulties, and the comparatively greater cost of transport where you have one or two or three centres of distribution? Of course when buying imported cement you can get it landed at any part of the Irish coast. I want to put before the Minister a further point. Is he satisfied that there is a sufficient demand for cement in the Saorstát to-day, or that there is likely to be within the next four or five years a demand sufficient to maintain three or four factories? The Minister was not so sure of that when he introduced his first Cement Bill. As a matter of fact, the Minister, at that time, was not even perfectly sure that the demand was sufficient to maintain one cement factory. Could the Minister say whether the number of people to be employed by the new cement factories will be 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600? I submit, sir, with all respect, that that is a very important point.
I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I do not know.
I submit, sir, that the Minister ought to know. He should be able to give the approximate number, because unless we are able to give extra employment as a result of setting up those factories there is no justification for the Bill. Surely the Minister will agree that if this scheme is successful it will lead to the disemployment of many men who are to-day employed.
Nonsense!
The Minister does not agree?
No.
Will the Minister state the number of tons of cement that are being imported into the country at the moment?
It is no greater than the number that will be produced in the country in the future.
Quite. That is the same point. I think I would not be far out in saying that the number of tons of cement used in this country at the moment is roughly a quarter of a million.
200,000 tons.
I am submitting to the Minister that the handling of that 200,000 tons of cement gives considerable employment at the moment in the country.
What will happen the cement that is produced here?
Exactly. I am asking the Minister can he now tell the House how many men will be employed if his scheme goes ahead?
My answer to the Deputy is that the same amount of cement will be handled; in fact, there will be more transportation of the home produced cement than of the imported cement, and consequently more handling in the transportation.
The Minister's reply means that this is not going to lead to any extra employment in the country? If that is so I am afraid I will find it very difficult, speaking for myself personally, to support the Bill, because there would be no justification for increasing the price of cement in this country, having regard to the fact that cement enters very largely into the giving of employment both in the building of roads, the building of houses, and doing work generally. There is no doubt but there will be an increase in price, and unless the Minister can show to this House that there is going to be a fairly substantial increase in the employment given, I submit that there is no justification whatever for the Bill.
I should like to put this point before the Minister. At present the North Tipperary County Council have under consideration a scheme which has been submitted to them by their county surveyor for concreting part of the trunk road between Dublin and Limerick, that part which runs through the North Riding of Tipperary. The estimated cost of that concrete road is £68,000. I should say, of course, that the whole scheme is dependent upon whether the Government will be prepared to give a fairly substantial grant.
£68,000? How much is the cement going to cost?
I do not know.
That is an important point.
It would be about 40 per cent. of the cost, and I think I am putting it too high at that.
I am afraid I am not an expert.
40 per cent. of the cost of making the concrete road would not go on cement.
Between 40 and 50 per cent.
I am putting it at 40 per cent., which I think is a fair figure to take. I want to know from the Minister what addition will the county surveyor have to make to his estimate for £68,000 for the same mileage, when this Bill becomes law, and when the Irish factories come into operation? I have to assume, having regard to the present state of the finances of the country, that we are not going to get the 50 per cent. grant we were expecting to get, and, therefore, the whole scheme for the spending of £68,000 will be held up until we can get another Government.
About £3,000.
£3,000 may not seem very much to the Minister, as Minister of course, but it means a lot to the unfortunate ratepayers in North Tipperary. £3,000 would feed a lot of hungry men in North Tipperary.
We will mandamus them.
That is a different point. I want to go further. Could the Minister tell us here and now, under the housing scheme, under the thousands of labourers' cottages that are to be built by county boards of health throughout the Saorstát, what is going to be the increased cost to the local authorities and the State through the passing of this Bill? Is the Minister satisfied that the cement to be produced in this country will be equal in quality to what we are getting at the moment? The Minister has stated it will, but he does not give us any evidence. He has not told us on what his belief is based. As a matter of fact the Minister has been delightfully vague about the whole thing. I should like to hear from the Minister that the cost of transport of cement in this country from the point of manufacture to the point of consumption will not be, as it might possibly be, greater than the cost of the article itself.
I should like to refer the Minister to column 1316, volume 47, number 4 of the Official Debates.
"Mr. Dockrell: On this section I assume that the Minister takes power here to insist that the quality of the cement manufactured at each of the factories is of the present standard specification."
The Minister replied:
"We might insist upon something higher. The British standard specification is ordinarily accepted by a number of manufacturers of cement at present."
I controvert that most emphatically. It is not true. I do not suggest that the Minister stated that for the purpose of deceiving the House, but it is not correct. The Minister's reply continues:—
"We would undoubtedly fix a specification, certainly not lower than the British and possibly if investigation showed that the raw material justified it, we might fix a higher specification all round. There will be a specification that will ensure the best quality cement that can be procured by modern machinery."
Observe the words "there will be a specification that will ensure the best quality cement which can be procured by modern machinery." A moment before it was going to be British standard specification. These are the two promises side by side. So far as I am aware—Deputy Dockrell probably will be able to give us accurate information—the British standard specification is changed from time to time. The average difference between British standard specification and the commercial standard of first class cement—I am not referring to aluminous cement or to quick-setting cement but to the ordinary Portland cement—it would be difficult to set them out seriatim, but the average commercial cement would be about 50 per cent. superior to the British Portland standard. Taking the tensile test alone I think the British Portland standard cement is about 600 lbs. and the average commercial test 950 lbs. The Minister, I have no doubt, has all those facts at his disposal if he wants to look at them, but notwithstanding that he gets up and says that the British standard specification is ordinarily accepted. We would undoubtedly fix the specification not lower than that, and possibly if investigation showed that we had the raw material we might fix it higher. I call attention again to the Minister's words: "There will be a specification that will ensure the best quality cement that can be procured by modern machinery." Is it any wonder that I have doubts as to what the Minister is going to stipulate for? Is it any wonder that I put it to him that there is not the least use in his telling the House that we will get cement at 15 or 20 per cent. above what we are paying for it now if we do not know the quality of the cement?
It astonishes me that this House has not examined the problem more critically from the point of view of housing. We are going to spend several million pounds in the course of the next few years on housing. This Bill is intended to give employment to an indeterminate number of men in the production of an article as regards the quality of which we have no satisfactory assurance from the Minister, while it is also calculated to increase the cost by an indeterminate figure, for the people who are going to build houses. Remember that every £1 you put on to one of these houses is going to mean so much of an increase in the rent of it. We are told by the Minister that he does not know what the increase is going to be. He does not know what the standard is going to be. We must leave it all to him and he is going to settle it. I do not think that it is a rational or a sensible thing for this House to pass a measure of this kind, particularly with the housing schemes that are in front of us, without getting all that information, information which undoubtedly this House should have, before it makes up its mind finally on the merits of the Bill.
It is rather lucky for the prospects of this Bill that the Minister does not profess to know all about the manufacture of cement: that he is leaving a monopoly of knowledge in that regard to Deputy Dillon. The Minister has indicated that he is going to have the quality of the cement determined by experts and not by himself. Deputy Dillon introduced some fulsome details as to the tensile stresses of commercial cement as against the British standard specification. As one who has been engaged in the use of cement for over 30 years and claims to have some practical knowledge and experience of the working of it, I have yet to learn that the British standard specification is not good enough for any type of work in this country. For some inferior types of work Belgian cement has been used. I have experience of the use of every type, British standard specification and others. I have seen them tested by expert engineers, and I have never yet met one who was not satisfied with the British standard specification of cement for carrying out any type of work in this country. Further, I have seen samples of cement manufactured in this country submitted to tests similar to those applied to the British standard specification. These samples, on test, were found equal to the best type of cement on the British market. I have seen cement made from material taken from the bed of the River Shannon. Expert evidence as to the quality of the cement is available. There are other places, too, in the country where material is available to make cement equal to anything that can be produced in any country in the world. We are asked to believe that we cannot produce sufficient experts in the country who will be able to determine the quality and standard of the cement to our needs. If we have the material to make cement equal to that made in any other country, surely we can get the experts in to produce the standard we aim at. We need not depend on Deputy Dillon's theoretical expert knowledge.
What is that standard?
Why should there be any hesitation or beating about the bush as to whether or not we are going to engage in this industry in this age of cement?
What standard are we aiming at for this cement?
I am suggesting British standard specification would be quite sufficient. The Minister has indicated that he is not satisfied that that may be good enough, but he will be guided by his experts. At any rate, that is the minimum that he will accept.
The Deputy's aim is British standard.
It is good enough for me. Deputy Dillon says it is not good enough for him.
What is good enough for John Bull is good enough for us.
Caitlin Ni Houlihan— perish the thought.
If I thought that the manufacture of cement was not going to result in increased employment, then naturally I would hesitate as to whether it is worth while going on with this Bill. But, listening to the argument between Deputy Morrissey and the Minister, it is clear that the Minister believes that there will be increased employment. It is quite probable that a greater number of people will be engaged in the handling of the cement produced here than there are at present. There will be people engaged in excavating the material, in hauling it to the factories and putting it through the various processes of manufacture. All that must mean that increased employment will be given by its manufacture here. What that number in the factories will be I do not know, but it should not be difficult for the Minister to ascertain what is the man power per ton produced in other factories at the present time and arrive at an idea as to what amount of extra employment would be given in the production of the cement. In that respect, I would respectfully suggest that the Minister, instead of concentrating rather on two large producing factories in the country, should, if it were still possible to produce it economically, spread it over four, or, perhaps, five factories in the country. It would mean greater employment of labour and it would mean bringing the cement closer to the points at which it was going to be used and it would make for general satisfaction, provided that the points are suitable and experts are agreed that they can produce it economically and at the right price in units less than the units suggested for these two factories.
I do not think the Minister ought to be deterred by all the criticism that has been directed against the scheme. I think we ought to have some courage in entering into this scheme when we are developing the natural resources of the country. As I said, we are living in an age of cement and it is a matter for surprise that somebody has not thought fit, long before now, to take advantage of the current demand for cement—a demand that is likely to last for a generation—and do something for ourselves instead of being continually dependent on the foreigner.
What does Deputy Keyes mean when he talks about the standard of cement he has seen tested? Does he mean the British Portland standard or does he mean the average standard of English cement? That is the whole question.
If the Deputy would only tell me what he means, I might understand, but I do not know what he means and he does not know himself.
Deputy Keyes is lacking in that courtesy which I associate with the Deputy. A certain standard, I think I am correct in saying, was fixed by the British Portland Cement Manufacturers' Association in England, and it is well known to anybody who is engaged in the cement trade. It relates to soundness, setting time and tensile strength, and there is a certain standard fixed as the British Portland cement standard. It was fixed a considerable time ago and I think it has been amended from time to time. The commercial practice has been that cement supplied by these English firms is far above that standard and the tendency constantly has been for the quality of British Portland cement to rise above that standard. I imagine that some of the inferior qualities of foreign cement, of which I have no experience at all, have fallen appreciably below that standard and I think that probably the Belgian cements are somewhere in the neighbourhood of it, but we have been in the habit of getting into this country a high grade of British cement which, in fact, is considerably superior to the British Portland cement standard. All I wanted the Minister to say was that, with that in his mind, he was going to fix the standard we are accustomed to in British cement, whatever that may be. We are accustomed to getting the top-grade British cement, and I suggested that any manufacturer who was going to tender for a licence should say: "I will deliver cement of the standard of top-grade British cement at such and such a price," and the Minister could then make his choice between the men tendering on that understanding and on that basis.
The British standard is set and issued in conjunction with the engineering institutes as being that which is necessary and requisite to do all forms and types of work in which stress is required to be met. Anything over that is simply done by the manufacturers to boost their product as against another, but that is accepted as the standard of safety. The Minister says he is prepared to look for a higher standard than that, but I, as one person, say that what we have been doing in this country and what is being done in Great Britain, with that standard set up in conjunction with the engineers of this country and of Great Britain, ought to be quite good enough for us to aim at. If we are aiming at a higher standard, good look to us, but what we have been getting in this country up to now ought to be good enough for us for a start.
I join with Deputy Morrissey in endeavouring to get the Minister to tell us how many people he thinks will be employed when these cement works are established. After all, that is a factor that one would expect would be taken into consideration in determining the amount of support that one would give to the Minister in his effort. I take it that what is in Deputy Morrissey's mind is that, when the factories are established, a great many quay workers would be disemployed in consequence of the fact that a certain number of tons of cement comes through each of the ports every year. So far as that is concerned, I do not think there will be very much difference because a considerable amount of coal and culm will have to be imported in order to make that cement but, at the same time, I do not think the Minister would have much difficulty in finding out the number of men who would be employed in the two cement works he has in mind. In the Drinagh works, where the output was something about 200 tons a week, there were 60 men employed for 24 hours on three eight-hour shifts. I do know that the works are capable of turning out more but I suggest to the Minister that he ought to get that information and give it to us on some stage of the Bill.
So far as the standard specification is concerned, I, like Deputy Keyes, have been familiar with projects in which cement was used and any engineer I have ever come into contact with was always perfectly satisfied with the British standard specification. I do not think there is any inferiority in Belgian cement and I think Deputy Keyes mentioned that. All these continental firms go out of their way, when quoting, to mention that their cement is equal to British standard specification and I feel absolutely certain that, if we can get the British standard specification in the cement produced in this country, it would be quite sufficient. I think also that we are entitled to hear from the Minister what the actual increase will be, not when the cement works are established, but immediately after this Bill is passed. I understood from his Second Reading speech on the previous Bill that he proposed to put a tariff on cement in order gradually to bring up the price so that the people would not feel the shock. If the Minister were to tell us that increase in the price per ton, and not speak in decimal points as he did before, it would enable us to see what effect the increase would have on the housing mentioned by Deputy Dillon. That is a very important factor in the situation. For instance, if cement were to be increased by, say, 2/- per ton, it would mean an increase of 6d. per week in relation to the ordinary worker's four-roomed house that is being built at the moment. That would be very serious, so far as the poor people are concerned and so far as the slum dwellers, who, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health suggests, should be transferred from the slum areas into new houses to be built, are concerned. These are questions that the Minister ought to endeavour to secure information on so that we could make up our minds as to what our position is in respect of unemployment and the effect of the increase in price on building in the country.
The Minister has told us that the increase in price in this country would be very little when these factories are erected. He says that the price will be nothing more than the British price at present prevailing in England. He has admitted already that the price in England is not economic. If I understood him rightly, he said that cement can be bought in England, shipped over to this country, shipped back again to Glasgow and sold in Glasgow, at a good profit, at a price 5/- per ton less than that at which it is sold in England.
The price of British cement here is not economic.
It is economic for us.
Mr. Brodrick
The Minister says that the increase in price will be very little. He also said that it is possible to buy cement in England, ship it across to this country and back again to Glasgow and sell, at a good profit, at a price 5/- less than that at which it is sold in England. Am I correct in that?
Quite.
Mr. Brodrick
We have that 5/- per ton increase for a start. That is admitted by the Minister. I cannot see any other way out of it. He has said that it can be sold at a price 5/- less in Glasgow than the British price and at a good profit, after shipping it over to this country. All I can draw from that is that it will be raised 5/- per ton for a start and there will be the profit plus the transport to this country from the British port and back to the Glasgow port. As to the standard, I agree with Deputy Keyes and Deputy Corish that the British standard should be good enough for us. By adopting some standard, we would know where we were. The Minister says that if we go higher in standard we will pay more. I should like to know from the Minister how high he proposes to go. He should give us some idea of what price we shall have to pay and what he believes the standard will be. Is he of opinion that we should have a higher standard than British Portland? It would be only fair for the Minister to tell us what the increase in price will be and, if he is to go beyond the British Portland standard, what his standard will be.
Is there a commercial profit for cement in this country, judging by the information disclosed to this House by foreign sellers?
I am afraid that I do not follow the Deputy's question.
It would appear from statements in the House that cement is being dumped here at any price and that there is no recognised commercial value placed upon it.
Quite so. People manufacturing cement in other countries told me quite candidly that they were losing many shillings per ton on every ton of cement they sold here.
In other words, the cement manufacturers of other countries are in the same position in relation to the consumer in the Irish Free State as the butter producers of the Irish Free State are in relation to the consumers in Great Britain.
That is very far from the section of the Bill under discussion.
If the Deputy thinks that the fact that we can buy cement so cheaply at the moment is an argument against the making of cement here, then it is also an argument against the production here of everything else which can be bought cheaper. That would include butter.
I am not putting it forward as an argument but the Minister should tell the House whether or not the price of cement to our own people is going to be increased as a result of this Bill. There can be only one justification for this Bill, in my personal view, and that is that it will result in providing increased employment. I should like Deputy Keyes to consider this question: Will a factory producing a thousand tons of cement per week—I know that a good deal will depend on where the factory is placed and how near the raw material may be —give employment to 20, 25, 30 or 40 people under modern conditions? Will the Minister say that three factories producing a thousand tons of cement per week will each give employment to 25, 40 or 50 men? That is the real point. But another point arises. In view of the fact that we have a scheme for the building of some thousands of houses for agricultural labourers over a period of years and a scheme for the building of a great many thousands of houses to relieve the slum dwellers, if the increase in the price of cement were to amount to even £5 per house, in my view the Bill would not be justified. An increase of £5 per house would ultimately mean much more because it would involve the payment of increased interest over a period of 35 years. The Minister ought to be in a position, when he asks the House to pass this Bill, to tell us—leaving out the question of the quality of the cement, on which I am prepared to accept the Minister's word—(1) whether the increase in price will be reflected in the cost of the houses to be built here; (2) to what extent it will be so reflected, and (3) to what extent that increase in price will react upon the slum dwellers whom we hope to provide with new houses.
I should like to point out to the Minister the effect this Bill is likely to have in connection with the schemes adopted by local bodies for the housing of agricultural labourers.
I apologise for interrupting the Deputy but is it understood that the remaining sections of the Bill will be taken without discussion?
Except on technical points. Deputies are aware that they are making Second Reading speeches. I understood that it was the unanimous desire of the House that Section 3, though the definition section, should be taken as the kernel of this Bill and that there should be very little discussion on the other sections.
I think it was agreed that the main discussion would take place on this section and that on the other sections only points of detail would be raised. These points might arise on Section 12.
I am allowing the debate to proceed on that understanding.
I think that the House accepts that.
That is correct.
I am concerned with the effect that this Bill is likely to have on the erection of labourers' cottages. I come from a rural area and I am interested in the cottages which are about to be built throughout the country. If the statement of Deputy Corish be correct—that an increase of 2/- per ton is likely to increase the price of a house by 6d. per week—I cannot see a hope in the world of the agricultural labourer paying the rent he will be asked to pay. It might not be relevant for me to express my view now as to the rent which is likely to be charged for these houses. I understand that it will be about 2/6 per week. That is too much and I would certainly be against any Bill likely to increase the rent of agricultural labourers, even if the measure were supposed to give considerable employment. I think that the first care of the Dáil should be to do nothing which would make more difficult the housing problem before the country at present. This Bill is not calculated to relieve that problem.
There are two points of view concerning prices and it is just as well to get them stated. We are getting cement at less than cost price. That, I think, is agreed. Neither those who buy cement nor those who sell cement deny that the cement coming in here is coming in at less than cost. Everybody is selling cement here at less than cost because this is the only free market in Europe. That may end to-morrow. We cannot prevent its ending. We have no guarantee that the different cement-producing combines of Europe will not reach agreement concerning this market next week or next month. Immediately they do, prices will go up. We cannot stop that. They are likely to go up much more considerably in those circumstances than they are likely to increase when production is commenced under this Bill.
That is to happen when you pass this Bill.
That is Deputy Dillon's argument all along. He contends that so long as other countries produce goods at a low price we should not produce them ourselves.
Not so long as it would leave the poor in the slums worse off.
His policy, and the policy of the Centre Party is so long as we can buy things abroad cheaply we should not try to produce them ourselves.
If, by that means, the poor should still be left in the slums.
Does that apply to butter?
My reply to the Minister is as follows——
I will ask all the questions at the same time and then the Deputy can reply. The Deputy says that the policy of the Centre Party is that we should not try to produce for ourselves anything we can buy more cheaply abroad if it increases the cost to the poor. I want to know if that applies to butter, beef, eggs, poultry, bacon, pork, and every single agricultural commodity? Will he tell us what agricultural commodity we are producing here that we could not buy more cheaply abroad? Apparently the policy of the Farmers' Party is to turn all the land of the country into parks in which we can sit down and eat cheap food from abroad.
The Minister has now deliberately said that he wants me to answer that question.
The Minister said the Deputy would have an opportunity of answering all the questions together, so the Deputy need not interrupt now.
The Minister is still continuing to administer interrogatories.
We will first take the point of view that we should endeavour to produce here anything that could be economically produced. Now if there is anything we can produce here it is cement. The whole country is built on limestone. We could produce enough cement to supply all Europe.
You would want more than limestone.
We have the best quality limestone, and we can produce cement, and sell it here more cheaply than cement is sold in the majority of countries. It is no longer a matter of experiment. The Deputy's attitude is that we should not embark upon an experiment unless we are sure of success, but this is no longer a matter of experiment. We have proposals from the most reliable firms. We have British standard and Portland cement sold here more cheaply than in Britain.
What is the difference in price between what is sold here and in Great Britain?
It is so wide that the Deputy could make a profit on it. If the sole argument against making cement here is that the price may go up I ask: Have we any guarantee that the price will not go up if we do not make cement here? The price may be up next week. It is common knowledge that interested parties are trying to make an arrangement to parcel out this market before we start.
They forgot about us before. They did not think we were on the map at all.
So far as the price of houses is concerned, the price of cement here is uneconomically low. That is not going to remain so. The Belgians and the Danes are not going to continue selling us cement at a loss. They will get tired of that and prices will go up.
That is not an answer to my point.
It is an answer to say that the prices of all classes of building will be affected, in any event, whether we make cement or not.
How does the Minister know that?
Despite all history, I, for one, do not believe the British are mad. The next point is that Deputy Corish's figures are entirely wrong.
On a point of explanation, it is only fair to say that my calculation was not correct. I made it in a hurry. If the increase was £5 per house, as suggested by Deputy Morrissey, the increase in rent would be about threepence per week.
Take the average house, now entitled to a subsidy under the Housing Act, built entirely of cement. An increase of 4/- per ton in the price of cement would increase the total price of the house by one half of one per cent., and although I cannot say that the increase will be 4/-,. or 5/-, or 6/-, because the price fluctuates, nevertheless, I do not anticipate the price of cement will rise to anything like a point where it will be noticed, even in the price of a cement house. Against that, I repeat that the price of cement is not subject to our control. We can produce it and sell it at an economic price. That price will be sufficient to recover the cost of production, of handling and of distribution, and ordinary remuneration on the capital invested. It will be an economic price; and, as far as we can ascertain, the economic price here is going to be less than the actual selling price in other countries. That is satisfactory. It creates a prospect of an export trade in cement when the rest of the world has recovered its senses, when the cutting of prices such as has been going on has been arrested, either by wise legislative action or the operation of economic laws.
The only other point I want to make is this: it is not possible to state the total employment that will be given. We are having proposals submitted from different firms, but what the total employment is to be cannot be estimated at present. I cannot say within a hundred what it is to be, whether you include employment in the manufacture of sacks to be used for the packing, or take into account only the employment given in the actual production of cement. There are many factors, and it is impossible to give a figure; but there are going to be four, five, six or seven hundred people employed. I do not contemplate that there will be any diminution in the number of people employed in transport. I believe that the number of persons employed in the transport and distribution of cement is likely to be larger than at present because there will be more transport to be done.
The Minister wanted to know my attitude on the production of beef, bacon and butter, and a long catalogue of articles of that kind. I hope that the mind of this Party in matters of that kind is the mind of commonsense. We have no silly preconceived prejudices. If there is a proposal made for a tariff the sensible thing is to examine the proposal and to strive, intelligently, to find out what the results of that tariff will be, to weigh the evils against the benefits, and then to make up your mind——
That sounds like the preamble to a Tariff Commission Act.
——whether this is a tariff or exclusion, but it comes to the same thing. What we ask is how many men are going to be put into employment, and in the course of putting them into employment en bloc, is this going to help to keep the poor still in the slums? What is it going to put into the pockets of people who get houses at low rents? Does it mean a substantial increase of rents to the poor people? Or if it is going seriously to delay the rehousing of the slum population in Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Wexford and other towns, then this House should be very slow to pass this Bill into law.
The fault I find is that the data that are necessary to any intelligent examination of these proposals have not been made available. We do not know what the benefits are going to be of the grinding of cement clinkers in this country and we do not know what the evils are going to be. The Minister says that he takes it from the attitude of these benches that our view is that you ought not to try any experiments until you are sure they will succeed. I do not think we are entitled to make experiments to the jeopardy of this country. It is all very well for the Minister to make experiments in his own business, but not to embark on hare-brained undertakings such as economic wars and so on in order to find out how they will turn out. The ordinary people of the country and the taxpayers of the country are involved in such experiments. If this is going to involve a substantial increase in the cost of housing, who is it that will suffer? It is not the Minister nor anybody in this House who will suffer but the people who are waiting for houses will suffer. That is why I am reluctant, until the Minister gives us the information we ought to have, to support a Bill of this kind.
In my opinion the Minister has been very unsatisfactory on the main point.
What is the main point?
As to whether or not there is going to be increased employment.
There will be.
If so, the Minister might explain. The Minister confesses that he does not know. He pretended to know very much more about it when this was first introduced. At that time he was prepared to mention a figure. He is not prepared to do so now. He is not prepared to say whether the number to be employed will be 100, 200, 500 or 1,000. He says he does not know. I suggest that, if there is any justification for passing this Bill and for the increase in price—I do not worry so much about the latter if it means added employment and if it means that the cement will be equal in quality and at an economic price for this country—but if the production of that cement means a substantial increase in the present price, that, in my opinion, can be justified only if it is going to lead to fairly decent employment in the country. The Minister is not in a position to say whether it will lead to that or not, or whether 100, or 200, 500 or 1,000 men will be employed.
I submit that the Minister, or any other Minister, coming before the House with a Bill of such importance as this, and having the reactions that this Bill must have on the question of employment in other directions throughout the country, and having its reactions upon all relief work which is sponsored by the Government or by the local authorities—and this Bill will have its reactions upon every form of relief work undertaken by a local authority or by the State—in view of all that and of the increased cost, I submit that the Minister should be in a position to say to this House how many are likely to be employed. I do not want the Minister to state a set figure as he did on one occasion when he mentioned 84,501. I will not tie him down to "one." I am prepared to take round figures. If the Minister would only give half the attention to the indication of a round figure covering the number of men likely to be employed that he gave to the 84,501 in the famous manifesto of 1932, I think it would be a very good thing. The Minister had more responsibility for the result of the 1932 election than anyone else on the Fianna Fáil Benches. I give him full credit for it. He worked very hard for it and, as I have said, if he would give half the attention he then gave to those particular figures to the question of the number of men likely to be employed as a result of this, I would be quite satisfied. I am prepared to accept a round figure. Will the Minister say how many men will be employed per thousand tons output per week?
The only thing that I can say is that the number of persons likely to be employed upon the actual manufacture of cement would be from 400 to 500. That does not include the distribution staff or the clerical staff or those engaged in the packing of the material.
I take it that the Minister means when the factory is fully in operation?
Yes.
On what does the Minister calculate that figure?
On 200,000.
I should like to know whether there will be any people losing their employment at the ports as a result of this.
I do not anticipate that there will be any loss of employment.
When this Bill was under consideration—I am not quite sure yet whether this is the same Bill or another Bill—but when a Bill was under consideration here some months ago the Minister then had some figures. His figures to-night are only half what they were a month ago. If he has time to look up the report of the debates he will see that the figures he has given to-night, as regards the numbers going to be employed, are exactly half what they were a month ago. I complain, not without reason, that on the previous occasion the Minister was not fair to the House. He has a Department behind him, and, if that Department is not overworked at the moment, the House is entitled to more information than it has received on either the last occasion or this occasion. I agree with the Deputies who said that housing is one of the most vital problems before this country at the moment. There is no country in Europe where housing on a large scale is so necessary as in this State of ours. Next to the importance of housing is the price of housing. This House is entitled to know, before it binds itself to this particular Bill, what the effect of this Bill is going to be on housing. We want to know from the Minister what the increased cost of cement is going to be. It is a very easy thing for the Minister to find out. He has a Department behind him and he can find out the number of tons of cement which will be in the average house and in that way find out exactly what the additional burden on housing will be.
I pointed out that particular fact when this Bill was under consideration on a previous occasion and the Minister said he had not got that information. I told him that it was his duty to give that information to the House. Here we are now considering the same Bill. As I say, I am not quite sure if it is the same Bill—we have discussed four of them, I think, in the last twelve months—and whether this is a new Bill, or an old one rehashed, I do not know.
It is a "concrete Bill."
I want to know what the effect of this Bill is going to be on housing. I take it that Deputies will press for that information. If they do not so press for that information, I must say that they are not acting in the interests of those who sent them here.
The Minister gave the figures.
The Minister did not give the figures and let me assure the Deputy that the Minister is as well able, and better able, to defend himself than the Deputy is able to defend him. If the Deputy will take my advice he will keep his finger out of this pie.
The Minister gave you the figure.
He did not. Little as the House knows at the moment, there are some Deputies in the House who do not know very much about this particular problem. The House is entitled to that information. We have an opportunity now of pressing for it and I think before the Bill is advanced another stage the House should know definitely the effect of this measure on housing. It is all very well to talk about getting employment for people. You may get employment, but at what price? Who is going to pay for it? Is it the unfortunate slum dwellers, as has been pointed out here, who are going to pay for this cement industry, this folly of the Minister? These are problems with which business men are accustomed to deal. Having some knowledge of the Minister, I believe he knows exactly what information is necessary. I will be quite frank with the Minister. I am a little suspicious that that information is not forthcoming. I do not like to go so far as to say there is a reason for withholding it. I might be right and I might be wrong. The House, at any rate, is entitled to that information and I do not think we should pass this Bill until we get that information.
It is with some timidity I stand to speak after the Deputy who is, of course, a practical man on housing. I will take his memory back to what happened during the debate on the last Bill. Deputy Corish referred to the closing down of the cement factory in Wexford. He stated that when the Dublin Corporation ceased to take that cement the works had to be closed. He said that was done just a few years ago. Deputy Good said that so far as his recollection went the factory was closed over twenty years ago. Deputy Corish said that that was not so, that it was closed during the time this city was being administered by the Commissioners.
On a point of order. I wish the Deputy would quote from the records of the House. If he quoted from the records he would find my statement was that there was not a bit of Wexford cement on the Dublin market for a period of twenty years. That statement is absolutely true.
It is not.
The Corporation could get it by paying a special price for it, but I maintain there was no Wexford cement to be obtained on the Dublin market.
Mr. Kelly
I do not know whether it was on the Dublin market or not.
That was the statement I made.
Mr. Kelly
My recollection of the Deputy's statement was that the cement factory had closed twenty years ago.
Read the records.
Mr. Kelly
I made an official inquiry from the officer in charge of the Dublin Corporation. I asked him to give me the figures for the last three years of the supply of cement from Wexford for Corporation purposes and he set them out as follows:—1924, 1,108 tons; 1925, 855 tons; 1926, 1,866 tons—and then no more. The Commissioners were in office from 1924.
Will the Deputy indicate how much was paid by the Dublin Corporation for that cement over and above the price of cement in Dublin at the same time?
Mr. Kelly
Over 30 years ago there was a small party of men, members of the Dublin Corporation, who made up their minds that where the rates were raised they should be spent. It was not a very popular movement at the time, but it became——
Surely the Deputy does not want to go back 30 years into the history of the Dublin Corporation on a definition section of the Bill?
Mr. Kelly
I think you are a little bit previous, if you will excuse me for saying so. A question arose at a meeting of the Council as to the amount of money that was being sent out of the City of Dublin for foreign cement. We then learned that the Belgian Government, properly enough, subsidised their cement production and consequently the Belgians were able to sell cement here very cheaply. It was then decided that we should make an effort to have the Wexford cement used in the city and we succeeded, because we proved that the Wexford cement was cement, and no man could say what the Belgian stuff was. Now, the same thing applies to-day.
What did it cost?
Mr. Kelly
I can get the Deputy official figures if he waits until to-morrow. I could not get them to-night. All the Corporation officers are gone, otherwise I could send a telephone message and have the information here within half an hour.
Is that why the Minister is introducing Belgian experts?
Mr. Kelly
I do not know whom the Minister is bringing in here as experts. I do know the Minister's economic policy is a sound one and that is why I and other members here are supporting him; otherwise we would not. The question of housing is a very important one here, a very important one indeed. The money that is to be spent on it in the next few years will reach an enormous sum if the job is to be done well. Millions of pounds are estimated to be spent in Dublin alone and cement will enter, of course, very largely into the building operations. At least £5,000,000 if a fair job is to be done and probably double that amount if a good job is to be done. That is the figure that the Dublin ratepayers will have to face, if the slums are to be eradicated. But quite apart from that, is it not a fact that a very large number of the community who are not able to buy houses themselves, or to put up the ready money for them, have been engaged in transacactions with various utility societies and will be engaged in the future for the purposes of building their own houses? These are houses of very much larger kind and some of them will run up to £1,400 or £1,500 each. Is it not up to the Government here to see that the material put into these houses will be sound and that the houses will be such that a father can bequeath to his children later on? How can anybody prove that with foreign stuff put into the building? What is to be made here is to be cement.
Do not be too sure about that.
Mr. Kelly
What else can it be?
I will tell you when I see it.
Mr. Kelly
Well, of course I do not think, expert and all as you are, that there is any necessity to argue the case further. Not only was the Corporation's policy successful in bringing prosperity to the cement works in Wexford, but it helped materially to keep a large number of men employed there. That went on as long as the Corporation was in power in Dublin. When the Commissioners came along they brought in foreign cement and the streets of Dublin were plastered with it. Foreign cement agents had birthdays here every day in the week; the City Commissioners gave us Civic Week and we had ladies swimming and gondolas on the Liffey and beautiful level streets, but they left us rotten slums. I have a quotation here that I want to read; I do not like to read in the House this Doomsday Book at all because it is always introduced here to confound your opponent. It is never used for any other purpose. I am not using it in that sense now, only in the historical sense. This is the quotation:—
"Mr. Good: The Wexford Cement Works were closed down twenty years before the Commissioners were appointed.
Mr. T. Kelly: 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.
Mr. Good: 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: Well, he should have first hand knowledge then...."
Was there a bit of cement sold outside the Dublin Corporation?
That is not the point.
At what rate was it sold?
I do not know. I have given sufficient information to show that the policy established by Sinn Fein was pressed in the Dublin Corporation 30 years ago; that it was a sound policy, and it is a policy that is now being continued by the Executive Council sitting here.
Will you tell the House at what cost?
I have already explained to you that I could not give you that until to-morrow, but I remember very well about 1903 getting expert evidence before the Council, where it was proved that the Wexford cement was four and a half times better value than the Belgian cement. And that was proved by practical demonstration right away. We were up against the same difficulty at the Pigeon House works about oil. At that time foreign oil was brought in there. We had an oil refinery then at Ringsend.
What has this to do with the Cement Bill?
He is only pouring oil on the troubled waters.
Mr. Kelly
I am only saying that the policy then was sound because we insisted that the oil industry in Dublin should get a chance. It got that chance and the result is that the most successful oil industry in the kingdom is at Harold's Cross.
It would not be Greenmount?
Mr. Kelly
Yes, but it was then down at Ringsend. I remember it well because I lost £13 on the mandamus.
The Deputy has got to get away from the oil works.
Mr. Kelly
I cannot get back to the cement works. I am finished with them. I am only giving an illustration of history in this city. The Dublin Corporation had a very bad name for years. Did anybody ever proclaim their good works, and their good works were many? They were practical works. I cannot understand the mentality of men here opposing the project of starting cement works in this country that will give a vast amount of employment.
I think it is only fair to say that the Deputy gave a wrong calculation about housing and about the streets.
I would like to know from the Minister has this Bill anything to do with the holding up of the housing schemes in the County Cavan? To a question put down a couple of days ago there was not a satisfactory answer given. We were told that there were 480 applications for grants and few of these have been granted. The object of this Bill is to give employment to 400 people in Dublin or in some part of the country. But the holding up of this housing scheme in Cavan is keeping thousands out of employment, and I think we should be entitled to some explanation as to why these housing schemes in Cavan are held up.
Sections 3 to 11 put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(1) Whenever the Minister grants a cement licence in respect of a particular area, the Minister may attach to such licence conditions in respect of all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the manufacture of cement within such area by the holder of such licence at one specified factory only;
(b) the extent to which materials for the construction or adaptation by such holder of any factory within such area and the plant, equipment and apparatus of such factory shall be materials, plant, equipment and apparatus produced or manufactured in Saorstát Eireann;
(c) the time within which such holder shall commence to manufacture cement within such area;
(d) the maximum quantity of cement which may be manufactured in any year at the factory in such area at which such holder manufactures cement;
(e) the maximum quantity of cement manufactured at such factory which may be sold in any year by such holder;
(f) the minimum quantity of cement which may be manufactured in any year at such factory;
(g) the maximum price which may be charged by such holder for any cement manufactured at such factory;
(h) the nature and quality of the cement manufactured at such factory;
(i) the mode of manufacture of cement at such factory;
(j) the packing of cement manufactured at such factory;
(k) the employment at such factory of nationals of Saorstát Eireann;
(l) the extent to which the raw materials and articles used for the manufacture of cement at such factory shall be materials and articles produced or made in Saorstát Eireann;
(m) the extent to which the capital invested in the business carried on under such licence is from time to time to be owned by nationals of Saorstát Eireann;
(n) the extent to which the management of such business is from time to time controlled by nationals of Saorstát Eireann;
(o) the transfer of such licence;
(p) the returns to be made to the Minister by such holder;
(q) the records to be kept at such factory and the production of such records for inspection by an officer of the Minister;
(r) the powers of inspection of such factory by an officer of the Minister;
(s) the right of taking samples of cement manufactured at such factory.
(2) Whenever the Minister attaches any conditions to a cement manufacture licence he shall specify such conditions in such licence.
(3) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, on the application of the holder of a cement manufacture licence, alter any conditions attached to such licence.
On Section 12 I would like to make a few remarks. There has been a good deal of talk about the cost and about the policy which, I suppose, will arise under sub-section (1) (h) of this section, that is "the nature and quality of the cement manufactured at such factory." Deputy Kelly has promised to get the cost of the Wexford cement by to-morrow. I would like also to ask him if he would not mind getting us some of the tests made on the Wexford cement.
Mr. Kelly
That would be going back 30 years.
Did not the Dublin Corporation get Wexford cement last year?
Mr. Kelly
That was in 1926.
Could you not get any tests made then?
Mr. Kelly
I do not know whether the Commissioners made any tests then.
Well, then the Deputy said that the Corporation were building houses that a father could bequeath to his children, and yet the Deputy does not know whether the cement in those houses was tested or not.
Mr. Kelly
I did not speak of houses built by the Corporation. I spoke of houses built through the agency of utility societies and building societies. These are houses of the bigger kind.
But were they not built under the aegis of the Dublin Corporation? The Deputy was talking about houses. The Corporation have to see that the houses are of the proper kind, but the Deputy says now that he does not know whether there was any test made about the cement.
The architect passes the plans. He has nothing to do with the material. That rests with the conscience of the builder.
The Deputy is misinformed again.
With all respect to the Deputy, I want to say that if the soundness and quality of the cement rests on the conscience of the builder it is not founded on a rock. I will not go any further except to show that apparently Deputy Kelly, who wants to hand down houses from one generation to another, is apparently indifferent as to the quality of the materials that go into these houses. However, I will not go any further along that line. The Minister says that we can make better and cheaper cement than the cement made in other countries. I only hope we are going to do that, because there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding here to-night and I think the Minister started it by talking about the British standard specification. We all know that Julius Caesar is dead, so is the British standard specification. It is like Julius Caesar. Years ago there was a British standard specification set up, but it has been revised, revised and revised again. So that now the latest British standard specification, in fact, I think they do not even call it British, but the revised standard specification bears absolutely no relation to the original British standard specification. I take it that the Minister is referring to the latest standard specification. I merely mention that to make it absolutely clear. Personally, I should like to see in paragraph (h) "the nature and quality of the cement manufactured at such factory which shall not be below the existing standard specification," because, I take it, that the cement market is a progressive one and the latest revised British standard specification may be absolutely obsolete in five or ten years. The Minister says we have all the materials here. We have. He has referred to the limestone. I think, on a previous occasion, he said that he hoped to get cement here ground finer even than the existing cement. If we are going to grind limestone rock finer than they grind chalk in other places, I only wish that the positions were reversed, because it would have an adverse effect, certainly, on the cost of the cement. We are quite used, in the cement trade, to hearing that certain cement manufacturers are out of the market, as they have only limestone. We have only limestone.
The Minister is very optimistic about the price at which cement can be manufactured here. I take it he is not unaware of the cement factory in Northern Ireland, as to which they say that cement from England can be delivered into the factory cheaper than the factory can produce it, on account of the cost of manufacture due to the smallness of the unit. I think the unit there is somewhere about 100,000 tons. I take it that the Minister is going to make most stringent regulations with regard to the quality. I was rather glad to hear him say, when pressed on the point of the cost of the cement, that that had relation to the quality, and I absolutely agree with him on that. Price is the major matter about cement, assuming that the quality is all right. I think Deputy Kelly could recall that the Dublin Corporation some years back had to take cement out of works that failed. We do not want to have that repeated here in the earlier stages.
What works failed?
Works that failed owing to the defective cement used in carrying out Corporation contracts.
Mr. Kelly
I do not remember that. The Deputy did not tell us where the works were.
Not very far from here.
That is somewhat removed from the Bill we are considering.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that we got an unanimous agreement to have a general discussion on Section 3, and pass the other sections except as regards technical points on which questions might be asked. In order to make sure that there is no misunderstanding I put the point again that there was unanimous agreement on that.
I agree with what the Minister says, and I was endeavouring to confine my remarks to Section 12 (h), which specifies the nature and quality of the cement manufactured at such factory. I do not know in what way I am wandering from that subject because, if I referred to the death of Julius Caesar, I can blame the Minister for referring to the British standard specification. If I am stressing the quality of the cement that ought to be used by the Dublin Corporation and others, evidently I cannot bring Deputy Kelly's recollection to help me in the matter, if not of the light that failed, at any rate of the works that failed.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Could the Minister give us some information as to what the fees for licences will amount to?
The Deputy is referring to a different point. This is a fee to be paid by a licensee when making application for an order to operate transport works, and the fee in that case will be fixed at the amount necessary to cover the administration expenses involved.
The fee for the import licences——
That is later on in the Bill.
Sections 24 to 28 inclusive put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 29 stand part of the Bill."
I want to raise a point on Section 29. I would like to know from the Minister whether there is a new procedure set out in the section. It says:—
Every order made by the Minister under this Part of this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if a resolution annulling such order is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent ten days on which that House has sat..."
I want to ask the Minister whether this ten day period involves a new procedure. I think a period of 21 days was set out in every other Act in which we had a section similar to this one.
What is in the other Acts is 21 days, or ten sitting days. This is ten sitting days, which is, of course, 21 days as a rule.
The Minister has not given us the alternative here.
I think it is unfair. I think this is much fairer. The Deputy will appreciate that this is increasing the power of the Oireachtas, in so far as the House must have been sitting at least ten days between the two periods.
I want to ask the Minister to go a step further. I want to have it that every order made by the Minister must be approved by resolution of the House.
I think it would be undesirable. The order, after all, is one authorising the person who is going to manufacture cement to construct a railway siding or operate a ropeway or something of that kind, and is made after local inquiry at which all local interests are represented. That order should be either approved or rejected in principle, whereas the Deputy's idea would be that it would be the subject of amendment here. I do not think it could reasonably be amended.
I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the order should be approved by resolution in the House. The Minister's point that it may be in connection with a railway siding, I submit, strengthens my point that the order should be approved by the House, that the onus should be on the Minister to bring that resolution before the House and that it should be passed by the House. I think that is quite reasonable. I am not suggesting that it should be open to be amended and torn up, so to speak.
I do not think there is any necessity. This is the ordinary procedure in relation to an order of that kind. In any case, we are asking the Dáil to give us that authority in order to facilitate those who want to construct cement works here. In connection with those cement works it is very probable that there will have to be constructed certain transport works, and an order authorising the people to operate and construct those works would be necessary. Otherwise people would have to come to the Dáil and promote legislation in order to get the power. We are asking the Dáil to grant us power to give those people authority to operate those works by order. I cannot see any circumstances which necessitate bringing the order directly before the Oireachtas for approval, in so far as I do not anticipate any circumstances in which objections to the making of the order are likely to be raised.
I do not want to press the point unduly, while I still think there is a good deal in it. I do not at all agree with the Minister's statement that this section is following the ordinary practice set up in other Bills. It is not.
Supposing a Deputy does want to question the order?
He can put down a motion.
When will it be heard? Within ten days?
Ten sitting days.
Will he get Government time for it?
I think that was a matter which agitated the House some time ago.
I know.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges have agreed that any such time must be given within ten days.
When I made the point I had that in mind. I think the Leas-Cheann Comhairle himself had experience of that.
As I protested so strongly against time being denied in a previous case I could hardly oppose it.
The Minister is now accepting so many things that he formerly protested against that that is the more reason that I should press for this.
I will try to be consistent in this case.
The Minister has forgotten all his previous policies.
Not all.
Nearly all.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 30 to 33, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 34 stand part of the Bill."
Section 34 says:—
"There shall be payable in respect of every import licence a fee calculated by reference to the number of tons of cement authorised by such licence to be imported, and at such rate per ton as the Minister may, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, fix in respect of such licence."
Does this mean that if a man is importing a small quantity there would be a higher rate for his licence than if he were importing a large quantity?
Oh, no.
Considering that the price of cement is going to be greatly increased so as to acclimatise the people to the price of cement produced here, I think it would be unfair if the rate charged for the licence amounts to any considerable sum. The cost of the licence would be passed on to the consumer, seeing that the cost of cement is going to be increased.
The rate charged to one person will be the rate for another. It is a rate per ton, and consequently there will be no more hardship upon the man importing a small quantity than upon the man importing a large quantity. The Bill provides that there will be published fortnightly the number of licences issued, and the rate per ton fixed. It is possible that a purely nominal fee will operate for a considerable time, and not likely to be increased until the lapse of a considerable number of months. It may not be increased at all, if, following the passage of this Bill, the price of cement imported into the country were likely to be raised by the sellers. In that case the fee might be always a nominal one. It is only in the event of the price-cutting policy continuing right up to the time when Irish-made cement is available that the fee is likely to be increased to any considerable figure at all. It is wrong to assume that these powers are being taken entirely for the purpose of grading up the price of cement to the level at which Irish cement will be available. The powers are mainly taken for the purpose of dealing with the situation after Irish-made cement is available, when it may be necessary to permit the import of cement into parts of the country, and, in certain limited quantities, into all parts of the country. It will be desirable in that eventuality to have power to fix the fee, which is, in fact, an import duty, and to ensure that there will be no undue advantage in one part of the country as against another because of the lower price of cement.
That is not my point. The point is: would it not be better to have a nominal price? If you put so much per ton on every ton a man imports are you not penalising him in carrying on his business?
The answer is twofold. The rate per ton is fair, because the man who imports a few tons is paying relatively no more than the man who is importing a large number. If the rate were per licence irrespective of the quantity it would be relatively heavier on the man importing a small amount. It is necessary to fix a rate per ton, having regard to the situation that would exist after Irish-made cement is available.
My point is that here you are penalising a man for carrying on his business. Why do it? If he is to get a licence, give him a licence at a nominal charge. By making it a charge per ton you are going to penalise a man for carrying on his business. Why do it?
He would be in exactly the same position as anyone else.
What is the need for licences until cement is manufactured in the country?
It is necessary in home interests.
What advantages will licences be to the industry now? We all know the trouble there is trying to get goods at present. There is not a number of people at the North Wall every day trying to get materials with which to carry on their business. Those of us engaged in trade know what the cost of the system is. Why bring such a large commodity within that unfortunate sphere? Why not allow it to come in until cement is available here, of an unknown quality? It will be then time enough to have licences. I cannot fathom what is the object in having licences until cement is manufactured here.
It is necessary to regulate the market.
What does the Minister mean by regulating the market? It is confounding the market, as far as I can see.
The Deputy has complained that a number of traders have to get licences to import particular commodities. Except Great Britain, there is no country in Europe in which the licensing system is less extensive than here.
If what we have been going through in this unfortunate State in the past 12 months is a sample of what exists in other States, I hope the Minister has some knowledge of the other States. He has certainly knowledge of the difficulties we are suffering under in this State.
In some other States a man gets a licence perhaps after six months.
What advantage is going to accrue by issuing licences until cement is manufactured here? Cement comes here at present to a free market, and we are enjoying the advantage of it. Every reduction in cost is passed on to persons who occupy houses, and every increase in cost will be passed on. Why put trouble of that kind in front of those engaged in industry when no definite advantage is going to accrue now to persons building houses?
Am I right in saying that the Minister stated that cement would not be manufactured and the plant going in this country for probably two years? The Minister might say 18 months.
We will say 15 months.
We will split the difference and make it 20 months. The Minister has beside him now one of the most zealous Ministers, the Minister for Local Government, who has put his hand to the housing of the poor. A considerable volume of that work will be completed within the next 20 months. Why not give the Minister for Local Government the advantage of cheap cement? When business is under way there cannot be forestalling.
There is the advantage of getting cement cheaper here than any country in Europe.
God knows, with the economic war, it will be all we can do to find the money for the houses we have to build. The less burden there is to carry the longer we will be able to fight. That is the Minister's principal concern. I suggest to him that he should allow free entry of cement while we are building these houses. There is no possibility of forestalling, because cement is a commodity that cannot be stored unduly. It might last, perhaps, for 12 months, but no one will attempt to keep it longer. Why not leave the market open so that we could get as many houses built as possible on the basis of cheap cement? Let other houses bear the burden. Perhaps the Vice-President would intervene, and ask that cheap supplies of cement should be available for the working out of housing schemes.
After the first 12 months of existence will the factories here save supplies in stock?
The Minister for Industry and Commerce says they will be working after 15 months. Deputy Moore knows as well as other Deputies that it will take two years. All we want is that the poor who are to occupy the houses should have the advantage of cheap cement. According to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, we are getting cement in here cheaper than in any other part of the world. If it becomes necessary to close the ports, and to make the unfortunate people pay, the Minister can close them later, and he can put his licensing regulations into operation. In the meantime, let us get all the advantages we can.
Section 34 and the remaining sections agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
Why is this called Cement (No. 2) Bill?
That is a technical device to distinguish it from the Bill that was withdrawn. I ask the House to take the Report Stage of this Bill now. This Stage was fixed for to-day. Not merely had the Bill a Second Reading, but two Committee Stages.
Why take the Report Stage now? The House wants a lot of information on the subject yet.
I do not want to press this now. As the Report Stage was tabled for a fortnight, and as no amendment was sent in, I assume that none will be tabled now.
This Bill only reached me this morning.
It is precisely the same as the other one.
It is not precisely the same. There is a different number.
That is about the main difference.
As far as I am concerned, before I vote for any further stage, I want information as to the effect that the cost of cement would have on housing.
The Bill was here for a long time.
Why not give the information asked on the Second Reading, regarding the provisions of the Bill, and as to the effect on the cost of housing?
If the Deputy agrees, I will give him all the information I have on the Report Stage.
The information ought to be available for the House.
I will make a full explanation on the Report Stage.
I object strongly to taking the Report Stage now. We asked the Minister to give us estimates of the increased cost and the number of men that will be engaged. We asked, above all, for reasoned estimates of the increased cost of building houses for the poor as a result of this Bill.
Surely the Deputy is not able to build houses.
The only reason I can offer for having the Report Stage now is that a fortnight elapsed after the Second Reading and no amendment was tabled. With the exception of the new part inserted, this Bill is the same as the one originally introduced. However, if there is any objection I shall not press the point. I am anxious that the works which are likely to result from the Bill should not be delayed. They will take a long time to construct and we have got to the point when we have merely to say "go" when the Bill becomes law. I suggest that the Report Stage be taken to-morrow if Deputies do not wish to take it to-night. I am doing that on the assumption that if Deputies had any amendment to the Bill they would have tabled it.
The only amendment that Deputies could have put down is that the Minister should clear his mind and furnish himself with certain information, and as that would not be acceptable to the Chair, it could not be put down. Specific questions were asked here and if these were answered the House would have the information which it required to judge this Bill on its merits. I think the Minister should postpone the Report Stage until he is in a position to schedule that information.
The fullest possible information has been given to the Dáil on the Second Reading of the Bill and on the two Committee Stages. If Deputy Dillon has not been able to understand it I am not responsible. However, in view of the objection to taking it now, I ask that the Report Stage be put down for next Tuesday.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 6th June.