I was directing my remarks last night particularly to this fact: that in this important question of industry, its development, and the development of the foundations upon which our present industries and our future industrial development must rest, public confidence is being definitely undermined and, in so far as the public are assisting in the development of Irish industry, they are being misled by the general line of deception practised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government. The Minister intervened in an interruptive kind of way, with considerable energy and in considerable volume, last night, simply to carry out the particular policy of deception about which I was complaining. In the matter of prices—I was dealing with the question of cement—I said that the Minister had informed this House that the import price of cement had gone up by 6/- within the last few months, and that it was for that reason that purchasers of cement in this country were being charged 6/- more per ton for cement than in November. The Minister said that he made no such statement and then developed it with the statement of what he tells us are the facts; and these are that the foreign importers of cement increased their price by 2/- a ton, but insisted that the sellers of cement in this country would sell cement at an additional profit to themselves of 4/-. Now, I want to stigmatise the Minister's intervention in that particular way, and his statement, as a further example of the deception that is being practised on the people of this country. The Minister made his original statement in regard to this matter on the 21st April, 1936 (column 1143, Vol. 61 of the Official Debates). The extract from the Parliamentary Reports reads as follows:
"Mr. Lemass: There has been an increase in the price of cement. The price of Continental cement has increased by 6/-, but that has got nothing to do with the institution of this licensing system.
"General Mulcahy: Why was that increase charged before it touched the ports?"
Now, that was not exactly the question that was in my mind. The question in my mind was whether that increase was charged before it touched the ports. Did the Minister answer that? No. The Minister continues as follows:
"I pointed out, when the Cement Act was under discussion, that this was the only free market for cement in Europe—the only country in which the various cement-producing countries were in competition, and that, in consequence of that, the price of cement was lower here than it was in any other country in Europe."
Subsequently (Col. 1147) I asked:
"Did the Controller of Prices give the reason why imports of non-British went up by 6/- a ton?"
I asked that question after the Minister had indicated that the price of cement was under review carefully by the Controller of Prices. The Minister's answer was as follows:—
"The reason was that cement would be supplied only on that understanding. The three producing countries from which we were getting cement. Denmark, Germany and Belgium, increased prices by 6/- a ton and supplied importers only on condition that it was sold at the price fixed by them."
The Minister, last night, denied that he had stated that the reason why cement prices went up by 6/- a ton was that the foreign suppliers of cement increased the price of their cement by 6/- a ton. Last night, he said that he never said such a thing— that the import price of cement had gone up by 2/- a ton and that foreign suppliers of cement had insisted upon those handling cement in this country putting another 4/- to that 2/- and pocketing the 4/- themselves. That statement was made on the 21st of April, and when we turn to the figures for the import of cement just supplied in respect of March, 1935, we find that the average price of cement imported in March, 1935, was 26/10 a ton. The average import price of cement for the whole year had been 26/4, but the average import price for cement in March, 1936, was 27/5—an increase, as against March, 1935, of 7d., and an increase against the average price for the whole of 1935 of 1/1; and yet the Minister tells us that 2/- was the increase. He goes back on his statement made the other day, which he now denies, and suggests that the import price of cement has gone up by 2/- and that foreign suppliers dictated to this country that they would not supply cement at, let us say, the increase of 2/- that the Minister mentioned, except the importers here pocketed an additional 4/-. Does the Minister resist the charge that he is carrying out a general policy of deception as to what is happening here, and that he is refraining from carrying out such examinations as are in his power to carry out through the Controller of Prices, simply because he does not want to disturb the forces that are at work increasing the prices of commodities to the public generally?
When we were discussing super-phosphates, the Minister said that the reason for the fall in the production of super-phosphates here was that there was an increase in the import of super-phosphates. The Minister subsequently denied that he said such a thing.
But when dealing with super-phosphates on the 21st April, 1936, as reported in column 1108 of the Official Reports, the Minister said:—
"In addition, the actual amount of fertilisers produced by Saorstát factories in 1933 proves nothing in relation to the consumption of fertilisers in 1933, because fertilisers were being imported in increasing quantities."
The fact was that the imports of super-phosphates had declined in the particular period that the Minister was speaking of from about 30,000 to 13,000 tons. The Minister, in dealing with the further assisting of the superphosphate industry in this country, told us that the reason why production in this country had gone down was because the imports had gone up, at a time when his own statistics showed that the imports had been reduced by half. The Minister also resists the interpretation of his statement with regard to the Spanish market for eggs —that it was more important than the British market and offered greater opportunities.