asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce how the price of cement in Ireland at the present time compares with the price in England.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cement Prices.
47.
A comparison between cement prices in Ireland and in England would be misleading unless comparable conditions existed. The systems of delivery charges are very different but from information available to me I am satisfied that the ex-works prices in this country compare favourably with the average ex-works price in England.
Is it not a fact that the ex-works price in England is approximately £1 lower than it is in this country?
No.
In England?
No.
Could the Minister say what is the price ex-works in England?
There are a number of different ex-works prices, some of which are lower and some of which are higher than ours.
Would it be right to say that some of them are £1 lower than ours?
No.
Is the Minister in a position to say at what price cement was imported into this country from Britain? He should have those figures. Is the Minister out of date?
No. That has nothing to do with the question.
When I wanted to ask a question about this matter before I was told that we would be able to get this information on this question. I wanted to ask a supplementary and you told me, Sir, that the question of prices for cement imports was coming up later.
I did not indicate what information the Deputy would get.
I wanted to ask a supplementary and you told me, a Cheann Comhairle, I would get the information later. It is to be taken that it would be the information I asked for and not some other information. Can we have that information now which I was promised earlier or can I now ask a supplementary on the earlier question?
Can the Minister tell us what is the average ex-works price in England and in Ireland?
This would take some working out.
One figure—the average import price.
There is no such thing as one figure in relation to the various prices there are in England.
Take the total number of tons imported and the total value; divide one by the other and get the answer.
This question has nothing to do with imports.
That is a separate question.
A Cheann Comhairle, you ruled that I could ask this question now.
I did not rule anything of the kind. I said there were questions to the Minister pertaining to the price of cement.
I could not ask my questions then.
Is the Minister aware that the purpose of these questions about the cement industry is to prove that the Government have let the cement industry run riot?
That is a separate question.
I know that is the purpose of the questions but the difficulty is that the Deputy is finding that is not so.
I am finding it is so.
What about £2 million profit for two years running?
That has nothing to do with the question of the price.
Not half.
I have said in reply to the question that the ex-works price in our country compares favourably with that in Britain.
It does not. I have that from the people in the industry.
48.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce what precise provisions there are for the control of the price of cement; how these provisions are operated; and whether he intends to bring cement within the normal price control arrangements.
The prices charged by Cement Ltd. for cement are subject to a special arrangement——
May I ask why my supplementary is irrelevant? The question relates to the price of cement.
(Interruptions.)
I could not hear the answer to my question.
The Minister is being arrogant.
The Minister is being obedient.
Could we have the answer to that question again?
Which question?
My question.
They are in a tizzy over there. They are at cross-purposes.
Deputy Clinton wants to hear the reply again to Question No. 48.
I appreciate that. I had not finished it.
May I have an answer to my supplementary question on No. 47?
We have passed from Question No. 47. We are now on Question No. 48.
I asked a supplementary on Question No. 47.
The prices charged by Cement Ltd. for cement are subject to a special arrangement governed by a condition in the licence which was issued to the company, under the Cement Act, 1933, which permits the company to increase its prices to off-set increased costs that are outside its control.
The evidence submitted to me by the company from time to time has shown that they do not seek immediate compensation by way of price increases for all such costs increases.
Amending legislation would be required if the cement manufactured by Cement Ltd. were to be brought within the normal price control arrangements.
Is it not a fact that just prior to the strike Cement Ltd. increased the price of cement by 11s?
Yes.
And following the strike they increased the price by 16s 8d?
Yes.
Would the Minister tell the House what portion of this increase was due to the increased wages paid to the workers? Is it not a fact that it was not more than 5s or 6s?
In case a wrong impression was created I want to make it clear that what Deputy Clinton asked was the last increase 16s 8d, and somebody said "Yes". Just in case the impression may have been created that the Minister said "Yes", the increases were 15s——
It was announced as 16s 8d.
——at Drogheda and a further increase making a total of 18s 5d in Limerick. There were two increases in the course of this year but the second increase did not arise solely because of the increase in wages. One of the contributory factors was the increase in wages but certainly it did not cover anything like the full increase in wages.
The second increase? Is not the estimated increase, as announced publicly, covering 6s of the 16s 8d or has the Minister tried to make any calculation at all? An increase of 16s 8d was permitted, plus 11s immediately prior to the strike. It is quite obvious that we are not trying to control the cement industry and that they are making enormous profits.
Is it not a fact that Cement Ltd. have got two increases amounting to almost 30s per ton this year? The Minister seems to have great difficulty in adding two small sums.
I have the Deputy here to do it for me. It appears that irrespective of what conclusion I have come to——
But the Minister has come to no conclusion.
I have made the reply.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
I want to raise a point of order. Earlier this afternoon at Question Time you suggested, a Cheann Comhairle, that when I had a supplementary question on the matter of the import price of cement I should raise it on questions coming up later on. It seemed to me that you were entirely correct because Question No. 47 asks how the price of cement in Ireland at the present time compares with the price in England. As all cement in Ireland at present is imported the import price of cement is necessarily included in that question. Accordingly, I waited but when I raised the question, which arises directly out of Question No. 47, you then ruled it out of order on that question. I should like to suggest that ruling was incorrect and to ask you now to permit the supplementary to be put.
My ruling was in order. I cannot change it at this stage.
Even though you misdirected me earlier?
I pointed out to the Deputy that there were further questions pertaining to the price level of cement. I did not indicate what the answer would be.
When that was in reference to a supplementary question of mine what else could I take it to mean but that I should raise the supplementary question later when it arose directly on Question No. 47? I submit that you could not be right on both questions. Have I permission now to ask the supplementary?
No. Order of Business.
I realise that it was not the Chair's intention to mislead the Deputy but quite definitely he was misled. The Chair implied that while the supplementary question was not in order at that point it would be in order on the next question. Surely it is the right of a Deputy to elicit information at Question Time——
Properly.
——and the Chair surely should protect that right?