asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state in respect of a proposal for a cement project referred to by him in Dáil Éireann on 28th November, 1951, (Official Report Volume 127, No. 10, column 1822) (1) if the summary of the said proposal as set out in column 1822 was made by his Department or the Industrial Development Authority; and, if so, the date upon which such summary was made; and whether any report upon the said proposal was received by him at any time from his Department or the Industrial Development Authority; (2) if either his Department or the Industrial Development Authority reported that the said proposal involved: (a) that the promoter in question was to be given a monopoly of the sale of all cement in this country, (b) that Irish Cement, Limited, were to sell all their cement through the said promoter, (c) that the said promoter was, in the course of a couple of years, to make £2,000,000 profit; and, if so, if he will quote the relevant extracts from either or both of the reports on the three matters or any of them; (3) in particular, if the figure of £2,000,000 profit was at any time mentioned or suggested in connection with the said proposal; and (4) the basis of the allegation that £2,000,000 profit was to be made in the course of a couple of years.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cement Project Proposals.
The summary of the proposal relating to cement manufacture on which I based my remarks on November 28th was prepared in the Department of Industry and Commerce at my request prior to the debate. Regarding the proposal referred to in the question, the promoter in this case proposed the establishment of a central organisation—called by him a "sales central"—which could buy or take over all cement whether home manufactured or imported. Commission on the imports of cement was to be granted to a company with which the promoter was connected. For this concession a cement factory which was originally estimated by the promoter to cost £1,000,000 was to be erected in two years. In using the figure of £2,000,000, I had regard to other and more reliable estimates of the probable cost of a new factory of adequate size.
As regards the last part of the question, I have seen a report of a meeting held in the Department of Industry and Commerce on 1st March, 1950 (a copy of which the Deputy obviously used in putting down his question). The Chairman of Cement, Limited, is reported as saying that he could not agree that the dividends paid by Cement, Limited, had been high or even that the figure of 10 per cent. was high; he said that companies operating in Britain under a Labour Government had been paying out 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. by way of dividend; and that he could understand an objection to 10 per cent. if the industry were not efficient or if it were not working to capacity. He is reported as having claimed that they were efficient and they were undoubtedly producing over 100 per cent. of their rated capacity; and he, therefore, felt that it was wrong that they should be criticised for looking for 10 per cent. merely because certain people had "bees in their bonnets" about monopolies. So far as public opinion was concerned, he thought that it was up to democratic government to educate public opinion in this and other respects.
Will the Minister quote the relevant part of the summary which he suggests substantiates his statement the other day that the gentleman in question was to be given a monopoly of the sale of cement in the country, that he was to be given the right to import and sell supplementary cement and that he was to make a profit of £2,000,000? Will the Minister quote the relevant parts of the summary?
The proposal was the establishment of a central organisation called "sales central" to buy and take over all cement whether home-manufactured or imported.
And that was the promoter that the Minister speaks about?
Yes.
Will the Minister bring forward any information or any extract from a report that would show that that sales company was to be the promoter?
That is as I understood it.
The Minister stated very categorically in the summary that he gave in column 1822 that he was quoting the proposal as summarised and as well as that he mentioned his proposal as a proposal which Mr. McGilligan was pressing and he mentioned specifically that this promoter was to get £2,000,000 profit.
Of course, the truth is there was not a word of truth in it but he will not admit that.
The proposal was that the commission on the sales of imported cement was to be paid to the promoter or the company with which the promoter was associated and that in return for that concession a cement factory was to be built. The original estimate for the cost was £1,000,000 but it was obviously very substantially underestimated.
The Minister summarised what he has mentioned now in quite different terms in his statement here and he stated explicitly that it was part of the proposal that the promoter should receive a profit of £2,000,000. Will the Minister substantiate that in any way?
The promoter undertook to build a cement factory if he was given this concession.
Where is it stated in any report or in any summary that this man was to get a profit of £2,000,000? Where is there any reference in any report or in any summary to £2,000,000?
He estimated himself that £1,000,000 would be enough.
The Minister declared and assured the House he was giving a summary and he turns an expression of that kind into a statement of £2,000,000 here.
That was the proposition which was turned down and rightly turned down.
That is not the question.
A most reckless charge was made by the Minister against Deputy McGilligan just as he made reckless charges in relation to shipping and electricity.
I will give a lot more information if Deputy McGilligan has the courage to come in here and state the position himself.
The Minister has not given the information he was asked to give.
And will not give and does not mean to give.
As I invited Deputy McGilligan, I invite Deputy Dillon to raise the matter again.
The question you asked me to raise I will raise and you will not like it.