asked the Minister for Finance whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the weekly Dublin Press to the effect that the decision to accept the offer of M. Lippens for the creation of a sugar beet industry involved the rejection of another offer from a Continental firm of the highest reputation and competence which offered to accept a much smaller subsidy; whether the alleged rejected offer would effect a saving to the State, on the Minister's own estimate of the sugar production for ten years, of about £490,000; whether in fact the price of the sugar beet crop to the farmers provided in the alleged rejected offer was not based upon but higher than the price given in England to the farmers; whether the alleged rejected offer was based upon a condition that the State should subscribe £150,000 (half the capital required), and whether this was done because it had been so stated officially by the Inter-Departmental Committee, and if the Minister considers it would not be more profitable for the State to accept such an offer and provide half the capital and secure a suitable price for the farmers if in the result a saving of at least £400,000 in the ten years' period could be effected.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY.
The acceptance of the offer of M. Lippens for the inauguration of a sugar beet industry involved the rejection of other offers, including an offer from a firm which would have received for sugar production, apart from other assistance, a smaller subsidy than that asked for by M. Lippens. The rate of State assistance required by the firm in question was to be equivalent to the Customs duty on sugar so long as that duty was at the rate of 17/1 per cwt., or more. When the offer was made, the Customs duty on sugar was 25/8 per cwt. If State assistance to the beet sugar industry here were given at the rate of 17/1 per cwt., instead of at the rates mentioned in my Budget statement, there would be a saving to the State of approximately £490,000 over the ten years' period, provided that the estimated amounts were actually produced. The price proposed to be given to the farmers in the rejected offer might in some cases have been higher than the minimum price of 44/- per ton insisted upon in Great Britain as a condition for the granting of a subsidy; but fell considerably short of the price which beet sugar manufacturers have found it necessary to offer to secure the growing of a sufficient quantity of beets for their factories. Moreover, the preposterous condition was attached that the price to be paid for beets was to be reduced or increased by 1/- per ton for every shilling per hundredweight by which the average wholesale price of granulated sugar was below or above 45/- per cwt. The reduction in the Customs duty on sugar this year, resulting in a corresponding reduction in wholesale price, would have meant a fall in the price to be paid for beet of approximately 16/- per ton. No farmers would grow beet on such terms. The rejected offer was based upon a condition that the State should subscribe three-fifths of the capital required for the proposed factory and be entitled to two-fifths of the profits; while the shares were to be allotted in such a way that the Government representatives would be outvoted in any matter concerning the management of the industry. The Inter-Departmental Committee intimated to the representative of the firm in question that they were authorised to consider and report on offers contemplating the provision of part of the capital from Government sources. On no occasion was it stated officially or otherwise by the Committee that the Government was prepared to subscribe one-half of the capital required. If the rejected offer had been accepted the saving to the Exchequer, as compared with the estimated cost of the subsidy to M. Lippens would, I imagine, far exceed the £490,000 mentioned by the Deputy, as I do not believe that a single ton of beet would have been delivered at the factory in the ten-year period on the terms I have outlined. The State would, however, have lost the capital sum of £150,000, and the establishment of a sugar industry would have been as far away as ever. The Government is completely satisfied that it has accepted the offer which affords the best chance for a successful issue to the experiment of the manufacture of sugar from home-grown beet without casting an undue burden on the taxpayer.
On the Minister's own estimate that the offer that was rejected amounted to a subsidy of 17/1 instead of 23/- per ton, if, say, half a crown a ton were added to that would that not bring the price over the price given to English farmers and at the same time make it a workable proposition?
I do not understand the Deputy's question.
If a half a crown were added to the 17/1 which was proposed in the rejected offer, that would still be below the 23/- subsidy. Does the Minister understand that?
Yes, but there is no use in dealing with hypothetical cases.
Am I to understand that this whole question of sugar beet growing is not at present in a state of hypothesis?
No, an arrangement has been made and the Bill has been drafted and will be submitted to the Dáil.
But the Bill has not been passed. Apart from that, before the Government come to a final conclusion, would it not be possible to refer the matter to a committee of the Dáil?
No. The Government will take responsibility in this matter.