asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if a consignment of approximately 5,000 tons of timber for building which was imported by a Dublin firm recently was transferred to Belfast; and, if so, whether he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Transfer of Timber Consignment.
Towards the end of 1950 timber merchants were encouraged, by the Government of the day, to lay in stocks of timber, against a possible emergency. It was considered that stocks should be maintained at six months' requirements, or approximately 80,000 tons, and the timber trade was exhorted to try to reach this target. In 1951 heavy purchases were made by these firms.
During the early part of 1952 timber prices on world markets began to fall and by the middle of the year prices had dropped by about a quarter as compared with the 1951 level.
Last July representatives of the timber trade informed me that the fall in world prices had placed them in an extremely serious position as they were carrying very heavy stocks of high-priced timber. They stated that timber in stock and purchased represented almost one year's requirements and that the drop in prices had thrown a serious strain on their financial resources, especially as certain firms which had not previously imported timber were availing of the current lower prices to bring in timber thus rendering the high-priced timber more or less unsaleable.
The timber trade representatives asked that they should be helped to liquidate without loss the stocks which had been built up in keeping with Government policy and proposed that imports should be controlled. This proposal did not commend itself to me because, among other reasons, import control would tend to keep up building costs. As an alternative I indicated that the grant of export facilities would be considered to help them to reduce surplus stocks and facilitate the earlier importation of lower priced timber. The timber trade representatives did not consider that it would be possible for them to avail of that facility to any extent, and up to the present licences have been issued only for the export of 5,745 tons, a quantity which represents less than 4 per cent. of our normal yearly requirements of timber. I am satisfied that the timber stocks in the country, which represent over six months' supplies, are more than ample, and that there are no grounds for any anxiety in this regard.
May I take it that the 5,000 tons of timber transhipped to Belfast were sold at a profit?
I have no information on that point.
Is the Minister aware that it was sold at a higher price than it was purchased for in 1950?
I am not so aware.
The Minister can be so aware and I will prove it.
The Deputy misunderstands the position. My regret is that the timber merchants have not been able to sell more of their surplus timber.
Why?
If they were able to sell more they could then be induced to place orders for larger quantities at the present price and thus bring down the cost of timber in the country.
The Minister is well aware that the reason for the surplus stocks was that building had completely closed down and that the banks had closed down and they had to get permission to tranship surplus timber at an increased price.
That is not a question.
How then can the Minister say that the price of timber is down or cheaper in view of the fact that the firm which imported this timber in 1950, on Government orders, for stockpiling—the Minister denied there was any—got an increased price the other day in Belfast?
The quantity of timber now in the country is larger than the emergency stocks which in 1950 the Government thought fit to be maintained.
That is not an answer to the question.
With reference to the statement that there are six months' supplies of timber——
More than six months.
——is that in relation to the present reduced building activity or to the normal building activity that we have had for the last three years?
As far as I know, there has been as much building in the country this year as any year.
There has been very little.
Is it a fact that the timber which has been exported is being sold at a lesser price than the current price for timber here? If that is so, would it not be obviously desirable that timber merchants here should be required to give first preference of purchase to customers here at the reduced price or to local authorities in order to help them to reduce the cost of timber and, consequently, the rents of houses?
I have no information as to the terms upon which the timber was sold. I cannot conceive of any merchant in his sane senses selling timber abroad at a lower price than he could get at home.