I move:—
That the Bill be now received for Final Consideration.
Cement (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Final Stage.
When this Bill was before the House during its previous stages we pressed for more information than the Minister had given, and we were anxious that, on this Stage, he should give us some information which he had not given on the previous stages. It was also pointed out that there were very essential features in connection with the Bill, and in connection with matters that arise out of it, on which more information should be given to the House. The first item was that of the cost of cement. It is not necessary to stress at this stage the importance of cost in an item that is so largely used in one of our largest industries. The Minister might say in the early stages that he had not got a definite figure, but he told the House when this Bill was last before us that he had offers in his Department and that he only required the sanction of the House to this Bill to put these different agreements into force. Knowing the Minister as I do, I am quite satisfied that he has inquired into the question of costs very fully and that he has had these particular items under consideration in his Department. But we have not had from the Minister, on any stage of the Bill, a figure as to what he anticipated the cost of manufacturing cement in this country would be.
I hope now in view of the notice the Minister has had on previous stages that he will give us that figure. It is essential we should have it. The next item we stressed during the previous stages was the number of hands that would get employment under this particular scheme. It is hardly necessary to recall that on Second Reading, when the Minister was overflowing with optimism about this scheme, he told us that between the two works intended to be set up under the Bill, with an output of 100,000 tons per annum it was anticipated that 500 hands would get employment in each of the works; in other words 1,000 hands would be employed. When the Bill was last before the House the Minister was not at all so optimistic; that figure of 1,000 had shrunk to 500. We pointed that out, but he could give no explanation. It is very important to know the number of hands that will get employment. I have gone to some trouble to find the number of hands employed in an ordinary cement works with an output of 100,000 tons per annum. I find the figure is, taking the average, 120 employees. I presume the works to be erected here will be works of the most modern machinery in them. Taking two of these works, employing 120 hands in each we get a total of 240 employees so that we have the 1,000 on Second Reading reduced to 500 by the Minister, voluntarily, during the last stages of the Bill, and now, when we come to probe the matter we find the real number will be 240.
Let us dwell upon that figure. The Minister can contradict that figure by revealing the information in his Department. Let us dwell, as I say, for a moment upon that figure. I put forward on Second Reading the argument that the probable additional cost of cement manufacture in this state would be an average of 20/- per ton. We pressed the Minister very strongly to find out exactly what the cost would be. He gave general figures round about 40/-, but he would not give any definite figure. I then went as high as 45/-. I am not sure but I think he told us it would not be higher than anything on the other side. I find the price of cement at present in Liverpool is 45/- per ton. We can get cement of good quality delivered in Dublin for little over 25/- per ton. That means that if we have to pay the price current on the other side we are going to have an increase of 20/-. Take it even at the figure of 10/-, if we work out employment for 240 people at an increased cost to the State of 10/- per ton it works out that each employee will cost the State £416 10/- per annum. That is a magnificent scheme— £416 10/- per annum for each employee.
As I said on a previous occasion, I am as anxious as any Deputy in this House that Irish industry should be developed but we can pay too high a price for industry and I think this is one of the cases in which we are called upon by the Minister to pay a figure which is too high. Possibly he will give the reason as to why we did not get this figure on previous stages. But there is a figure I would like the Minister to deal with. I am taking the extra cost of cement at 10/- per ton, I am taking the number of employees turning out of the most modern up-to-date works employing 240 men, and that works out, the Minister will find, at a cost under the scheme of £416 per annum to the State.
There is another point stressed at previous stages and that was that one of the most urgent problems of the State at the moment is the need that exists for housing. In other words that need is equally urgent. The Minister for Local Government told us that it is the intention of the Government to spend sums running to some four or five millions per annum for some years in order to deal with this important problem. Now we know the most important item in modern housing is cement. 90 per cent. of the houses erected are built with cement so, therefore, it is very essential at a crisis like the present we should know exactly, when we are going to limit this house building to the use of cement manufactured in the State, what that will cost. According to the figures given to me, and they quite agree with the Minister's figure which he gave on Second Reading, the cost will run into something like 3d. per week per house, taking the average house. The people who will pay for the industry will be the unfortunate people who will pay the rent for these dwellings. That is a very important matter. I am anxious to see industries started here but we must scrutinise things carefully particularly an industry that is to have such influence upon the cost of houses. We find objection made to the high cost of houses and it is notorious that the cost of housing in this country is much higher than it ought to be. Therefore we should be careful not to throw any increased burden upon the people or to increase the cost of rent unless we see that some advantage is going to result from the increased cost. No advantage is going to result from this particular proposal of the Minister. I again stress the fact that we are entitled to the figures we asked for on the different stages of the Bill. I cannot understand the cause or the reason for the withholding of this information which I am sure is in the Minister's hands or those of his officials. I think that information ought to be given to us.
Deputy Good has stressed the question of the cost of cement. I would like to stress the question of cost from an entirely different angle namely of quality. When this Bill was in the Committee Stage I urged upon the Minister that in regard to Section 12 (h) "the nature and quality of the cement manufactured by such factory," he ought to bind himself that the quality would not be below the latest standard specification. I should like to urge on him to put some such safeguard as that in the Bill, because cement is a very difficult and intricate manufacture. While there are a number of works manufacturing cement of the very highest quality they have only got to that pitch by the most ceaseless care and attention to every stage of the manufacture. There may be a certain amount of pressure, as every cement works is in an experimental stage, brought to bear on the Minister to allow cement which is not up to what it should be to be put on the market. I should like this House to remember that if one batch of cement that is not right is put on the market, people will not forget it for a quarter of a century, and in the interest of everybody the Minister cannot be too stringent in specifying that the cement should be the very best. Another point that I should like to put before the Minister is that in regard to the people who come in here to put up buildings or works it is desirable that they should be protected, and should not be compelled to use cement which they may have a suspicion of, or which is not up to standard. It would be very desirable if people who are coming in here to do certain works and put up certain factories were assured in advance, by being able to see it from the legislation, that the cement here could not be turned out below the very best standard. We here have been accustomed to such good cement over such a long period that we are rather inclined to under-estimate the effects that will be produced in this country if we do not maintain our reputation, and, if the people lose confidence in the buildings that are put up here. I cannot too strongly urge that on the Minister, and I should like to ask him to consider that it would be in everybody's interest that such a proviso should be inserted in the Bill. He no doubt can envisage the position that if once people become suspicious about the cement they are asked to use in this country they will not care what price they pay to bring it in from abroad. From that point of view, I would again urge on the Minister to consider the question of inserting such a proviso in the Bill, so as to make it compulsory that cement will not be put on the market unless it is up to the very highest standard.
I was very curious to hear the points upon which Deputy Good wanted information. I am naturally anxious to facilitate the Deputies in relation to any matters I am responsible for, and consequently I listened to him with great care. He wants to know what it is going to cost to manufacture cement here. My first answer is I do not know, and my second is that if I did I would not tell him. I do not mean to be discourteous in the least. There is a Bill before the Dáil which gives us power to license people to manufacture cement here. I explained in the Bill that we were going to ask every person interested in the manufacture of cement here to submit their proposals to us when this Bill became law, indicating the nature of the industry they proposed to establish, the price at which they thought they could produce cement, and the price at which they were prepared to guarantee to sell cement. We will give a licence to the people who put forward the most attractive proposition. Obviously it would be most undesirable that I should give any indication here as to the price which I might regard as a satisfactory one, or the cost of production I might consider to be practical, while those applications are pending, and in that way as it were to limit the full competition that is open at present to the different parties interested. It is most undesirable that I should do that. I said here in the Dáil that, from the applications I had already received from reputable firms, I had every reason to believe that even if we accepted the most unfavourable offer from our point of view the price of cement here would not be as high as it is at present in Great Britain. Deputy Good said: "Cement in Liverpool is 45/-; we can buy cement at 25/-; that is too high a price to pay for an industry in any country." It is possibly to be regretted that there is not in the British Parliament a Deputy Good to explain that matter to the British Government. Why do not the British people shut down their cement industry and proceed to buy from Belgium, Denmark, and the other countries that are willing to supply them with cement at the same price we can get it from those continental countries? Is there some wisdom in our remaining dependent on that supply of cement that does not apply in Great Britain? Surely if the arguments that justify us in failing to develop our own resources, and remaining dependent on those external sources of supply, have any weight in them they apply in Great Britain as much as they apply here. The cost of housing is an important consideration. The Deputy said that cement is the most important single item in the cost of housing. The British people must be very foolish to maintain housing costs so much higher than they are here at the moment. Does the Deputy agree with me on that?
No, because houses are not built of cement on the other side. They are built of bricks.
They are built of bricks here too.
Scarcely any.
If cement here were at the same price as in Great Britain a larger number of houses would be built of bricks. In so far as cement is the most important single item in the cost of housing is it true to say that housing costs are higher here than in Great Britain?
They are.
Is it true despite the fact that cement here is only half the price it is in Great Britain? The Deputy cannot have it both ways. The cost of cement cannot be the most important single item in the cost of housing if despite cheap cement we cannot build houses here as cheaply as they can build them in Great Britain.
I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but he is not comparing like with like. Houses are built on the other side with bricks; in Northern Ireland they are built with bricks; in the Free State practically every house is built of cement.
But if they could get cement in Great Britain as cheaply as we can get it here they would build them with cement too.
In many cases there are cheap bricks.
The only reason they are building houses with bricks is because cement is not as cheap as it is here. If cement were as dear here as it is in Great Britain we would be building houses in brick too. Building houses in brick is another reason why housing in Great Britain should cost as much as it costs here, whereas it costs less.
That would mean dearer houses here.
Why?
Because if you increase the price of cement you increase the price of the house. If you build it with brick, which is practically as dear as cement, that would increase the price also.
And therefore houses in Great Britain should be dearer than they are here.
No.
I am afraid that is logic I cannot follow. The Deputy says we can buy cement at 25/-; in Liverpool it is 45/-; cement is the most important single item in the cost of a house, and yet houses in England are cheaper than they are here.
Where is cement sold here at 25/-?
I am afraid Deputy Good is the only person who can answer that.
Where is it sold for 25/-?
I was going to ask Deputy Good that. But at what price can we buy British cement here? Is it 45/- here? It is a lot less than 45/-.
Yes.
Of course. The British, who are charging their own people in Liverpool 45/- are willing to sell to us at a lot less and, no doubt, we will continue to enjoy that advantage as long as the British are foolish enough to do it; but on the day that they decide that it is a game not worth the candle, or that they enter into an arrangement with the Belgians or the Danes or others to ensure that an economic price is going to prevail in this market, we lose these advantages and we do not get the industry.
We have enjoyed these advantages for the last 50 years, and the probability is that, if the Minister did not interfere, we would continue to enjoy them still.
I do not think so. I think that the probabilities are the other way round. I think the most reasonable assumption is that the period of the present advantages is a very limited one. Many attempts have been made in the quite recent past to get an arrangement in this market between the various cement producers. If the Deputy asks me what will be the difference in the price of Irish-made cement and the price of the imported cement I can only say that I do not know, because there is no saying what we may have to pay for it in future. Admittedly, we are getting it now at a price less than the cost of manufacture. There is not an importer who will not admit that he is selling it at a loss but we have no guarantee that in 18 months' time the same conditions will hold. In fact, the production of Irish-made cement may mean a reduction in the price.
Deputy Good also talks about employment, and insists that it is important to know exactly the number of people who will be employed. I do not know that it is of the least importance. The Deputy said that there are 120 employees engaged in a modern cement works producing 100,000 tons of cement. I want to ask him so many questions about that 120 that I do not know where to start. Does he include in that figure the men who are engaged in quarrying, or does he include those engaged in packing? Does he include those working in the mill itself? Does he include the clerical staff or the sales staff? According as he brings one other additional class of workers in I will get a different figure for the total number to be employed. I think that the most important figure of all is the £400,000 which, in each year, goes abroad and which, as a result of this project, will be almost entirely kept in the country and circulating here, available for the purchase of Irish produce, giving increased employment and making for increased prosperity generally.
We are going to pay for it.
Deputy Dockrell said that the important thing was the quality of the cement. There is no question about that, but there is no reason why we should impose upon ourselves a self-denying ordinance that no other country imposes upon itself. Deputy Dockrell says that no cement of a quality lower than the best possible cement should be allowed to be manufactured here. Other countries do not do that. We are going to make it a condition upon the firms engaged in the manufacture of cement here that they will sell cement of the specified quality at the guaranteed price; and the specified quality will be the best we can get. I have no reason to anticipate that it will be as low as, certainly not lower than, the current British specification. But there is no reason why we should bind ourselves to produce no cheaper quality cement if, as is quite practicable, the production of a cheaper cement may follow as a by-product of another industry that might be established. If people want to buy the lower grade at the lower cost there is no reason why we should stop them, provided that they know what they are buying. Our intention is to get 200,000 tons of best quality cement produced here at a guaranteed maximum price, and to have that cement available at that quality and at that price for a definite period in the country. The quality of the cement will be as good as that of the cement now being imported, and the price will be lower than the price is now in the country supplying it.
Might I ask the Minister whether he is persisting in placing the tariff on cement between now and the time the cement is produced here? I do not see what object there is in that in view of the fact that the Minister for Local Government is endeavouring to have houses built, and that a difference of even a penny in the rent of these houses means a lot.
It is not intended to place any restrictions on the quantity of cement imported, certainly, for some considerable time to come, and any licence fee that will be charged will be nominal.
There will not be a tariff?
No.
Might I suggest to the Minister that this should be a free market until it is necessary to close it when the cement is being manufactured here? It is desirable that it should remain a free market up to that time.
Yes.
Question:—"That the Bill be now received for Final Consideration"— put and agreed to.
I move:—"That the Bill do now pass."
The Minister has not given the House the information to which it is entitled and, so far as I am concerned, I will make every protest against the further progress of this measure.
I cannot give the Deputy any further information.
I say, with all respect, that the House is entitled to more information. When we were discussing the proposals with regard to sugar beet we had all the information with regard to the different contracts laid before us and the House was taken into the confidence of the Minister. Here we are, so to speak, buying a pig in a poke. We have not the faintest idea of what we are going to get or what we will be asked to pay.
Mr. Brodrick
Is the Minister not able to give us the probable number of people who will be employed in the factory and the number of quarry hands—the number in the mills and the number in the quarry?
My information goes to show that in the two factories, and the quarries that will be associated with them, apart altogether from indirect employment, 400 to 500 people will be employed. What the indirect employment will be, that is, employment in the production of bags, the marking of bags and the sale of the product, I have no idea at the moment.
Mr. Brodrick
Then there will be 400 to 500 people employed?
Yes, directly employed.
Has the Minister finally decided to have only two factories? He originally had three in mind. Has he now definitely decided to have two?
If the rate of consumption of cement continues to increase in the future as up to 1931 then, after we have two factories in operation, there will be room for a third.
Will any of these be built in Cork?
Drinagh first.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 47.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.