When my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill was interrupted by the adjournment on the last occasion I was discussing the question of the relative prices of mangolds and sugar-beet. I find on reference to the Official Report that I stated: "From my experience of farming I consider a fair average yield for mangolds is about 20/- a ton per statute acre." It is obvious that I expressed myself in rather a clumsy fashion. What I meant to say was that I considered from my experience of farming that a fair average yield would be 20 tons per statute acre at 20/- per ton. That brings us to £20 as a fair average value in my opinion, for a statute acre of mangolds. I had originally worked out sugar beet at 10 tons per statute acre, but as a result of the discussion here I prefer to rely on about 8 tons per acre, because in discussing a matter of this sort it is better to err on the conservative side, and I think Deputy Gorey, on the last occasion, accepted a figure of 8 tons per statute acre as the yield for sugar-beets. That means that the money value of an acre of sugar-beet of eight tons to the acre at 54/- would be £21 12s. as against £20. You may really call it the same thing if you wish. Then, in addition to that, there is the value of the pulp, which the farmer can buy, according to the Minister's statement, at about half price, and that would be equal approximately to 30/- per acre. That is to say, he has the right to buy one-half of the yield of dried pulp, and that figures out at 30/- per acre. In addition, there is the food value of the tops of the sugar beet plants. I am not in a position to give mathematical expression of what that is worth, but I think it is generally estimated that the tops of mangolds are of very little food value; I think the usual custom is to let them remain on land for manuring the ground; whereas the sugar beet crop contains very valuable food and is largely and entirely used as such. In addition to that and making a further comparison of sugar beet with mangolds there are these facts, that the succeeding corn crops yield from 10 to 15 per cent more, and in that connection I find that in Germany, with the ten years average rotation, including a beet crop, that the increase in yield worked out as follows:—For wheat the increase was 15.3, for rye an increase of 5.8, for barley an increase of 28.9, for oats an increase of 40.7, for rape 18.6, and for potatoes an increase of 6.5 per cent. It will be a simple matter for each one to work out for himself the effect of these increases and credit them to the value of sugar beet as against mangolds. But the real value of sugar beet cultivation, as opposed to mangolds, is that it is a new crop, you have a guaranteed price over a period of years, and that you cannot say for any other crop. That, to my mind, is a very considerable thing in favour of sugar beet. Deputy Cooper stated, I think, that the guarantee of price was only for one year. If he refers to the Bill he will see that a guarantee can be given for three years from the year 1928, I think it is.
BEET SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL, 1925.—SECOND STAGE (resumed).
It can be given. Is there any compulsion on the company to give it?
Mr. EGAN
Well, the compulsion will be this, that when the factory is erected it must in the first place get the beet. If they get down to a very low price for beet, of course, the beet will not be cultivated and their factory will remain idle. There is one price for three years and another for one year, and I interpret that in the year 1928 the farmer will be entitled to get a three years' guarantee at 54/- a ton.
Will the Deputy make quite sure that that is correct? The schedule says: "Beets grown in the years 1926, 1927 and 1928, price per ton, 50/- for one year's contract; 54/- for three years' contract." I take it that means that the three years' contract would have to be entered into for the years 1926, 1927 and 1928.
Mr. EGAN
That is not my interpretation; I may be wrong, and if so perhaps the Minister will correct me later, but I infer that to mean that in the year 1928 the farmer will be entitled to get 54/- for three years from then.
I apologise for interrupting again, but will the Deputy elaborate the word "entitled"? Will the farmer have any legal, any statutory claim? "Entitled" is rather a vague word.
Mr. EGAN
I understand that part of the contract with the Lippens' group is that they are to guarantee 54/- to the farmers for a three years' contract. Perhaps I put it wrongly. The question of the necessity for a supply of farmyard manure has, I think, cropped up in this discussion, and one thing about the growing of sugar beet is that very large quantities of it are grown on the Continent, in Belgium certainly, altogether from artificial manure. That I think is a point that ought to be taken into account. Deputy Gorey compared the yield of an acre of sugar beet with the yield of an acre of potatoes, and of course it is quite obvious, looking at it at first sight, that the potatoes would give a very much higher return. But then it altogether depends on the price of potatoes, and it will be within the recollection of Deputy Gorey, and of other farmers, that a couple of years ago potatoes became absolutely unsaleable. There again I want to emphasise the fact that for the sugar beet cultivation there is a guaranteed market and a guaranteed price, but that does not apply to any other crop grown, and I think it is to the credit of the sugar beet cultivation.
When I gave figures with regard to potatoes, I meant potatoes grown in the neighbourhood of the city of Dublin by market gardeners in the months of June and July.
In what year?
Last year, this year. When I dealt with the main crop I am afraid I expressed myself very badly, or at least not sufficiently. I said: "On the main crop I have given my values on a much reduced basis for July." That is either misreported or I have stated it very badly, but I think it is misreported. What I should have said was: "On the main crop I must give my values on a very much reduced basis from July." In other words, from £5 10s. to £6 10s. or £7 per ton would be as much as potatoes could fetch as a main crop.
I think also that the Deputy was referring to Irish acres. However, I do not want to dwell particularly on that point, except again to emphasise the fact that potatoes are not always saleable, and no matter what price you get for an article, if there is not a ready sale for it it is not much use. Before I leave the question of the yield of sugar beet I may say that, personally, I am rather more optimistic about the yield than even the Minister. Of course I am aware that I have already accepted the eight tons, but it is well to know that in England for the year 1923 the average is stated to be from eight to twelve tons per statute acre, and as high as from fourteen to eighteen tons per statute acre in certain districts— Norfolk and the Fen country, I think.
Will the Deputy say what exactly an average of from eight to twelve tons means?
Mr. EGAN
It puzzled me also, but I take it that an average of from eight to twelve means ten.
Mr. Wood reported, I think, nine tons per acre average of the factory areas for last year.
Mr. EGAN
Then the average for the three years, 1911, 1912 and 1913 on the small plots cultivated in Ireland shows twelve tons per statute acre. Of course I am perfectly well aware that you cannot expect on a larger commercial scale to get the same results as you will on smaller plots which probably receive greater care and attention. Personally I am not so much afraid that the yield of sugar beet in Ireland will not be well up to the standard as that the sugar percentage may fall rather low, and of course we have not got sufficient information before us at present to form a very definite opinion on that point. I would like here to correct a reply which I made to Deputy Johnson. He asked me could I say what was the average sugar percentage of the beet. I replied, I think, that it was in or about 15 per cent. I looked it up afterwards and I discovered that that referred to one factory for one particular period. I have gone more closely into the matter since and I find that from the year 1912 to 1914 the average of the Cantley factory works out at 16.5 per cent. sugar on a total beet crop of 367,000 tons. I think that that is a fair period over which to take an average. There are, I suppose, considerable variations according to the season; wet seasons bring it down and fine seasons bring it up, but at any rate I think that that figure can be accepted as a reasonable and fair average.
Now, one of the criticisms that has been made, as well as I recollect, is in the foot-note to a document which Deputy Johnson circulated the other day and is that the benefit to be gained in connection with this industry is really concentrated in the farmers in one particular area. That is to say, it is not widespread all over the country, That kind of criticism can be applied to many enterprises. For instance, the drainage of the Barrow only affects the people in the neighbourhood of the Barrow. Also remember the Shannon scheme will leave a great many people untouched. The fact of the matter is that it is quite impossible to devise any big scheme that is going to reach into every hole and corner and benefit everybody and even if we accept the criticism that the benefits only accrue to one area, even then it is better than doing nothing. We are relieving unable employment in that area, and I hope we will be getting extra land under tillage in that area. The criticism has been made also that the subsidy is too costly. Having listened to the Minister for Agriculture's explanation of the various negotiations I think it is perfectly clear that he made the best bargain he could. That is to say, if he gave any lesser subsidy the people would not come here to develop the sugar-beet industry and certainly would not pay farmers the price of 54/- One of the reasons why I took such an interest in this scheme from the very beginning is that I was hopeful it would employ many people. Undoubtedly the greatest evil we have in the country to-day is unemployment, and holding that view I cordially welcome any scheme that appears to me to go even a short distance towards remedying that evil.
Deputy Gorey said, with probably a great deal of truth, that this is largely an experimental venture. That is to say that this first factory is to be looked upon largely from the educational or experimental point of view. There is a good deal in that, but I contend if it proves a success the same as has been proved in other countries that the relief to unemployment will be a considerable matter at a later stage as soon as other factories can be set going because it is to be remembered that one factory will only supply the requirements of one-sixth of the population of Ireland and consequently other factories will be built later on if this proves a success. The building of the factory alone will cost a couple of hundred thousand pounds, so there will be a good deal of employment given in the actual building. With regard to the number of people employed in a factory of this size I have read a good deal of different estimates and literature dealing with the sugar beet industry in various countries. Roughly speaking, a factory working at full power will employ 250 skilled hands for the three months of the active portion. In addition to that there will be a demand for an amount of unskilled labour which will vary so much that I do not care to put any figure down.
Will the Deputy say if he has prepared any estimate of the amount of wages likely to be expended in employment?
No; I have not, because it depends altogether on the rate of wages ruling in the district. Whether that has been settled or not I cannot tell you.
Or the number of men likely to be employed per acre.
Yes, I have gone into that matter. It is stated that for every ten acres of beet cultivated there will be one man employed. That is to say as distinct from the factory. I speak of agricultural labour and handling of the beet in various stages. That will mean that 5,000 acres of beet will employ, constantly, 500 men.
Does the Deputy mean that one labourer will attend to ten acres or there will be one extra?
It is estimated that for every ten acres applied to beet cultivation one man will be employed.
Does it mean one man extra or one man altogether?
You may have it both ways.
That is very important. We ought to know the extra number of hands people employ. When I hear of one man attending to ten acres of beet I think it is too ridiculous.
Will five do fifty?
Will the Minister say there is no extra labour required at all, that one man can do 10 acres or 5 do 50?
Deputy Gorey is entitled to his figures. I have given figures which I have taken from responsible journals. The statistics are there.
I think the Minister for Agriculture has stated one extra man for every ten acres.
Extra for what?
Mr. EGAN
We are talking at cross purposes. What I mean is that if they put down ten acres of beet there will be required one extra man.
Over and above the potato crop or the regular rotation?
Mr. EGAN
Yes.
Before the Deputy passes on I think it would be helpful if he tells us the authority from which those figures are taken, particularly those regarding the increase in the yield of succeeding crops.
Mr. EGAN
I have not the exact title at present. It is a pamphlet produced by the Sugar Beet Growers' Association. I think that was the name, and that I can find it out for him. The Minister for Agriculture said that in his opinion this factory will not bring any extra land under tillage. I daresay he is correct as far as the first year is concerned, but I would be very sorry to think that it would be correct when the factory is going at full power, because, in my opinion it would be exceedingly difficult to get 5,000 acres devoted to beet without an increase in the tillage area. However, that is a matter of speculation and a matter of opinion. Certainly, for my part, I would not have the enthusiasm I had for the beet-growing industry if I did not think it would not bring, at a later stage at all events, some extra land under tillage.
May I explain? I said it does not matter twopence in my opinion whether the factory brings one or two acres, or any number of acres, extra under tillage. What does matter is whether the factory proves, in fact, that sugar beet is a profitable crop in this country, so that later we may have, not one, but twenty factories, and not 5,000, but maybe 50,000 or 100,000 acres of tillage. So far as this factory is concerned, it is not for the purpose of increasing tillage, in my opinion, but of proving whether beet sugar is a profitable crop in this country. If it is profitable, then we can have factories run on commercial lines afterwards, which will bring a far bigger acreage under tillage.
Mr. EGAN
Deputy Figgis the other evening referred to the fact that he thought it would be desirable that, as the State are putting up the subsidy, they should have representation on the board of this company. I am inclined to agree with him. I think it is a perfectly fair proposition, that if the State are going to put up a sum which may run into £200,000 per year that they should have somebody to look after their interests. I observe in Section 3 of the Bill that the company which receives the subsidy is to publish balance sheets and accounts, and that these are to be circulated amongst Deputies. It appears to me that it would be very desirable that the State should have a representative director on the board of the company.
It would be interesting to hear Deputy Johnson's views on that.
Mr. HOGAN
Why?
Mr. EGAN
Deputy Johnson has plenty of opportunities of expressing his views on that. Deputy Figgis went on to say, however, that if this company are going to make considerable profits, or any profits, that the State should share in them. At first sight that seems a very plausible statement, but you have to go a little further. There are plenty of people in the world who are perfectly willing to share profits, but I have met very few in my experience who had the same opinion about sharing losses. There is no doubt that, although very fine paper profits can be shown, paper profits do not always materialise. I am not at all convinced that it would be desirable that the State should commit themselves to the extent of sharing both losses and profits. Very often we have seen in our business experience prospectuses of companies that promise all kinds of wonderful results, but these results do not always materialise, and I do not think it would be right that the State should enter into any obligation to share the financial losses of the working of this company. Although they can put up a very strong prima facie case for making good profits, there is an element of risk in it. There is, first of all, the uncertainty that the quantity of beet is going to be grown. They have to take that risk. I wish to emphasise what I have already stated, that it would be necessary for very considerable propaganda work to be carried out in order to educate and persuade farmers into growing beet, because if the quantity of beet is not produced the whole concern fails, and I am afraid there will be a definite end to the sugar beet industry for some time.
There is a good deal of discussion as to where the site of this factory is going to be. I have been asked, on various occasions, where it is going to be, and I think Deputy Gorey expressed some curiosity also on that matter. I have made one answer to any people who have come to me on this question of the site of the factory. I said that, in my opinion, the first district that puts up a definite guarantee of a definite number of acres of beet in a given area provided that it has fairly good rail and water accommodation, is the one where the factory will be established.
Is that the position to-day?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes.
Mr. EGAN
As far as I can hear, at all events, the site of the factory has not been decided upon yet?
Mr. HOGAN
No.
Mr. EGAN
It rests with the people in the different districts to get going, and to make out the best case they can to have the factory built in the middle of their area. It is not at all clear that the farmers in the different districts are taking this matter seriously enough. It is the duty of the farmers, if they have any enterprise, to try and prepare statistics for the people who are going to build the factory, and I would like to see them a little more alive to it. I can quite follow that there are a great many matters upon which they wish to be instructed before they can decide finally whether beet growing will pay them or not. I would suggest to the Minister that in the very near future he should send some of his experts down to the possible districts where beet may be cultivated and give the farmers in these districts some information.
One of the things that appears to be exercising the minds of a great many farmers is the question of freight. Personally I hold the view that the great bulk of the beet will have to be carted on the farmers' carts. I think when it comes to paying freights over long distances that a good deal of the milk will be out of the cocoanut for the farmer. These are questions which a good many farmers are asking themselves. That is to say, that they want a little information as to what their expenses are likely to be.
There has been a suggestion — I suppose I am in order in referring to it — about this matter being referred to a select committee. To my mind, this policy of hastening slowly is a very questionable one. I have always regarded festina lente as the magnificent inspiration of a lazy man. It is a magnificent excuse for letting things drift and doing nothing.
I should be very loath to interpose merely on the point of order that the matter is not before the Dáil, but if Deputy Egan is going to refer to a matter that is not before the Dail, I think he ought to read the terms of the motion, and ask himself whether the whole Dáil is likely to report as early as the date set down in this motion.
On a point of order. Is it not a fact, well within our recollection, that Deputy Figgis is the very Deputy who introduced this topic in his speech on the Second Reading—a proposition for a Committee? Is it out of order for another Deputy to reply?
I am not questioning that. All I am saying is that Deputy Egan was not speaking so much about a Committee as about delay. There will be no delay according to the terms of the motion.
Mr. EGAN
In any case, I do not want to develop this matter very much further, except to say that I do not believe in this policy of delay. There is quite sufficient evidence available to enable us to make up our minds whether to go on or not with this project. I have in my recollection the results of a good many Government commissions. It is an exceedingly rare thing for any action whatever to be taken as a result of a Government commission or committee. The longest one I can remember is the Childers Commission, a great number of years ago, which found that Ireland was overtaxed to the tune, I think, of three-and-a-half millions. There was a whole series of commissions in the intermediate years. Then we had our own Canal and Waterways Commission, the report of which is still lying in a pigeon-hole. I think Deputy Figgis agrees with me there. Apart from this, I do not see in what way a commission or committee could help in this matter. This is a matter that requires a certain amount of technical knowledge and a good deal of deep study, and I maintain that has all been done already. If you appoint a Committee of the Dáil, or of both Houses, you will have an amiable discussion round a table, and nobody will be convinced.
For my part, I have no hesitation in saying that I welcome this Bill. I believe that this project contains wonderful possibilities for the future development of the country. I believe in it mainly for the reason that I have always held that it is our duty, in our economic development, to proceed along the lines of least resistance. For that reason, I consider that in developing agriculture, or any of the industries associated with agriculture, we are taking the best possible course to help to build up this country.
I have kept an open mind on this matter all along, and I must say, from what I have heard, that I have not yet made up my mind on the question of the sugar-beet industry. I took it for granted that the Government had decided that a sugar-beet industry was to be established, and that when established it could be run on an economic basis. I find now that its establishment is to be experimental, and that the Government, apparently, has no fixed ideas as to whether the experiment is to be successful or not. I approve of experiments of this kind in connection with agricultural industries, but I suggest that an experiment involving £2,000,000 is a very dear one for this country. There are other experiments with possibilities that would not involve the country in such large expenditure, which might be carried out before finally embarking on this scheme.
Mr. HOGAN
What are they?
I might suggest to the Minister that the experiments that have been made were made on specially-selected plots in a certain number of counties, and that the results cannot be regarded in any sense as final. We know something of the system on which these experimental plots are carried out. We know that particular farms are selected, and that the crop is grown under the most favourable conditions. No reliance can really be placed on such experiments, as to the acreage and the percentage of the yield of sugar from beet, grown under average conditions. If the Minister wants a real test I would suggest, as an experiment, that portion of the country might be reasonably set aside for sugar-beet growing as a commercial proposition. That would involve a loss, perhaps, of several thousand pounds, but the crop would be grown under ordinary farming conditions and not in specially-selected plots. The people would then be able to see what the results per acre would be and what the yield of sugar would be from the beet.
In the Dáil we have been confronted from time to time with projects of this kind as accomplished facts. Deputies have had no real chance of inquiring into the details of these schemes. We have had the Shannon scheme. It appears that the Cabinet comes to a definite decision and says: "This is our decision after having the advice of our experts, and the Dáil has got to accept it." I think Deputies have a right to insist that they shall be quite sure that any scheme for which their support is asked is financially sound. I am not prepared to give my support to this scheme, simply because the Minister for Agriculture, or any other Minister, states that his experts say the scheme is a sound one.
Mr. HOGAN
I did not say anything of the kind.
I believe that the Minister for Agriculture did not say that, but I understand that the Minister for Finance did say it. The Minister for Agriculture says that this proposal is an experimental one. I say if it is experimental a question that has to be seriously considered is, whether the country is able to afford an expenditure of £2,000,000 upon it. There are possible alternatives upon which the money might be spent, and that might be of greater advantage to agriculture, and give more employment. I am not condemning the scheme, and, on the other hand, I am not giving it my support. I am not in a position to condemn the scheme, nor am I in a position to give it my full support. I would like to be in a position to support it, because it is stated that the scheme is going to improve the condition of agriculture, of the industry generally, and give employment. Anything which would have that effect certainly deserves the support of Deputies, provided it is within the financial capacity of the country to bear the expense.
There are many questions in connection with the growing of sugar beet that have to be taken into account. I maintain that these questions have not been adequately dealt with. That is the reason I am in favour of a committee being set up. I have not come to that conclusion after reading Deputy Figgis's motion. I intended to make such a suggestion myself. This is a scheme which might be adequately dealt with by a committee, which would have an opportunity of examining witnesses, seeing documents and papers, making all possible enquiries, and satisfying themselves that it was a sound one. As far as I can gather, the Inter - Departmental Committee had nothing to do with the question of the policy of the establishment of a beet factory. They were simply told: "We have decided a sugar-beet factory is to be established in this country, and your duty is to find out what is the best means of establishing it. Get estimates and find out what is the best tender. When you have done that we will accept your findings." The type of committee I would suggest is one that would go into the whole question of the growing of sugar beet, and that would take into account the different conditions that exist in this country compared to other countries, where the sugar-beet industry is established. It would take into account things that adversely affect the growing of sugar-beet and the difference in climate. We have a wetter climate in Ireland than other countries in which the crop is grown.
Mr. HOGAN
What harm is that?
I only suggested that it might be a harm. I do not know. I maintain that the matter has not been sufficiently investigated and that it cannot be investigated without the establishment of a factory.
Norfolk, 1922!
I know that that was a wet year. Do they have a wet year, year after year? How does the rainfall in the other countries compare with Ireland? Does it fall in large quantities at a time or in continual showers daily? That would have an effect on the industry. If the rain falls in large quantities at one time, that would not prevent work proceeding in the fields, as the land dries after a while, when fine weather ensues. In Ireland, for the past two or three years, we have had continual rain week after week, with the result that it would be difficult to put men out on the fields to work at the cultivation of beet. It is well known that if beet is to be properly cultivated you must have men working at it all the time. Another effect of the climate we have is that in wet weather you would have a most luxuriant growth of weeds. On that account it will be necessary to keep more men working on the land, tilling the beet, and thereby increasing the cost of production. I have not noticed that these matters have been gone into. I maintain that they ought to be gone into. There is another matter which might be considered. There is the question of freight charges, the question of the cost of carrying the beet to market. If it is found that we cannot get a sufficiently concentrated area from which to get the beet to market, the area will have to be extended and, thereby the cost of carting the beet to the factory will be very much increased. I have been informed that the cost of carrying one ton of beet ten miles by rail is five shillings a ton. The Minister for Agriculture told us that the radius of the circle within which beet would be brought to the market would be twenty miles.
Where did the Deputy get that quotation of five shillings for ten miles? Is it from a railway company or a transport company?
It does not matter where I got it.
It is important.
That is roughly what it is, five shillings for ten miles. I am sure it is not much lower than that.
I would be surprised to know that that is a quotation from the existing classifications on Irish railways.
My quotation is not for Irish railways, as beet has not been carried on the railways here. This is probably a continental quotation. I think I got it from one of Mr. Woods's publications, and it may be taken to be approximately correct. Five shillings for ten miles would be ten shillings for twenty miles. That would come off the price of the sugar-beet. It must necessarily come off the price of the sugar-beet sold by the farmer. Deputy Egan talks about road haulage. If you haul beet by road, I ask Deputy Egan what the profit will be? If Deputy Egan loads one ton of sugar beet on a cart and hauls it twenty or even only ten miles, it is a day's work for a man and a horse.
Mr. EGAN
There are hundreds of thousands of tons of barley hauled considerably over ten miles every year.
Barley is a much more valuable substance in proportion to its weight than sugar-beet. Sugar-beet is a comparatively light substance, and the cost of haulage in proportion to its value would be greater. Deputy Magennis gave us a very interesting lecture on the question of sugar-beet. He is a very ardent advocate of the necessity of establishing a sugar-beet factory or factories. I would rather suggest that he almost over-argued his case. I would certainly have been more convinced if he had not gone so far to prove the necessity or the advisability of establishing one or even three beet factories. He also told us that one of the advantages of the establishment of a sugar-beet factory would be the increase in the yield of milk by forty-five or fifty per cent. He says that these were the official figures given in a British observer's report to the British Government. I ask the Dáil seriously if they think it is possible to increase the yield of milk in milch-cows by forty-five or fifty per cent. by feeding them on beet-pulp?
Does the Deputy challenge my veracity or is it the figures he is challenging?
I am challenging the figures in the Deputy's statement.
Does he challenge my veracity? I think I am entitled to an answer. I gave the Deputy the source of my information. If he disputes the accuracy of the figures which a British official gave to his Government I have nothing to do with that. The language which the Deputy uses now imputes to me the statement of something that is not true.
I will quote the Deputy's words in his speech on Tuesday last:—"Experiments both in Government research schools and in the actual practice of dairy farming show enormous increase in the yield of milk in the case of cows fed upon this pulp. Between forty-five and sixty per cent. increase are the official figures given in an English observer's report to the British Government — a man sent out to make a report on agriculture in Germany." I say that that is what Deputy Magennis said. I do not believe that. In fact, I know that such a thing is altogether impossible. At that point in the Deputy's speech Deputy Johnson interjected and asked: "Had selection anything to do with that? Professor Magennis — In what sense? Mr. Johnson — Selection as regards the milking qualities of the cattle. Professor Magennis — Certainly it had." That changes the whole aspect of the case.
Read the next sentence.
"It was all part and parcel of scientifically conducted farming and dairying." I acknowledge that, but Deputy Magennis was arguing that sugar-beet would increase the production of milk. Then unquestionably, he combined with that the fact that selection will increase the production of milk. We know that selection, apart from feeding, will vastly increase the production of milk. I read from his argument, and I suggest that anyone would read from his argument, if Deputy Johnson had not interjected, the idea that sugar-beet slices fed to cattle would give an increase of from forty-five to fifty per cent. in the milk yield. Probably a number of Deputies received this booklet written by Mr. Alfred Woods, about whom we have heard so much. He gives some results of experiments as regards the feeding of milch cows with sugar beet. I would refer the Deputy to page 6.
Is the Deputy referring to me?
The Deputy is not particularly referring to Deputy Magennis.
I thought that the Deputy who was speaking said that he would refer me to this publication. It is a Van Rossum publication. I have read it more than once.
As regards experiments it says: "Lot 2 in the first period had neither roots nor slices, and in the second period had 20 lbs. of roots per day, and 5.8 lbs. dried beet slices, besides the three parts of pulp to fourteen in the grain mixture. In this trial the milk produced on the ration with slices was 22½ lbs. more per cow as a weekly average." I calculate that to be an increase of sixteen per cent., a very satisfactory increase.
In England?
No, in Michigan. The following paragraph deals with another experiment which shows an increase of 6.18 per cent. There is evidently an increase in milk production to be gained by feeding with beet slices, in addition to other feeding, but I suggest it could not be increased by forty-five per cent., as Deputy Magennis suggested.
Again I ask your protection, sir. I quoted from a particular document, with regard to a particular country, as observed by a particular official of the British Government. The Deputy insists in believing that I generalised, and that all over the world in the Sierras, the Rocky Mountains, the Argentine, and the Alps, and under any circumstances whatever, the dried pulp residue of beet-sugar production would give a milk yield of from 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. The thing is nonsensical.
I am within my rights. I say that Deputy Magennis's statement does not specify any particular English observer. He does not give the English observer's name, or on what occasion he reported to the British Government, or where we are to get a copy of the statements which the observer made.
Or where the milk was going to.
That is all very fine, but these are the words that are used, and we have them before us. That kind of argument is a type of special pleading, or propaganda, calculated to do more harm than good, as regards the establishment of an industry of this kind. We want solid, hard facts. If an increased milk yield of 16 per cent. can be got good work will be done, and we would appreciate that, but it is not right to mislead the farmers.
Again, I ask is it right to suggest that I am misleading the farmers?
I do not think the Deputy should use an expression conveying the suggestion that the Deputy is misleading the farmers.
I say that while Deputy Professor Magennis has no intention of deliberately misleading the farmers, the farmers reading the statement may be misled.
One of them has been.
It is not advisable that they should be misled, or that they should read propaganda or exaggerated statements about the possible advantages of the beet root industry. We should rather try and get down to the real hard facts, and get a grip of them, so that we should know what sort of industry we are embarking on. That is why I suggest that there ought to be a committee of inquiry of the Dáil or the Oireachtas set up. That committee would have the opportunity of hearing evidence. That evidence would be published in the papers, and people would have a chance of reading and discussing it, so that the whole thing could be thoroughly thrashed out. As it is, it has been handed to us as a scheme which has been decided upon by the Government, and we are asked to accept or reject it. Deputy Professor Magennis is very fond of passing slights, if I might say so, on the farmers' representatives, if not on the farmers themselves. He referred to the agricultural grant, and he said that the new agricultural grant might be usefully diverted to the establishment of beet factories. I will read his words, as I do not wish to draw his ire upon me by not giving his exact statement. He said: "If you want to know where to get the money — well, instead of that £600,000 given as a grant-in-aid of agricultural rates, which is only a relief — a species of outdoor relief — give the money in the form of subsidies that will create not one but at least three factories in each of the provinces at present under the jurisdiction of the Saorstát, and create something with a permanent yield." We will not acknowledge that the agricultural grant given to us this year is a form of outdoor relief. We state that that grant is simply putting a matter right that should have been put right long ago, and that agricultural land has been bearing for years, and is still bearing, an undue proportion of the rates for the upkeep of local services. Therefore this agricultural grant has nothing to do with a subsidy or outdoor relief. It is merely righting a wrong that has existed for years, and that has already been righted in England and in Northern Ireland. Deputy Professor Magennis referred to an assured market. He says: "Farmers will have the advantage of an assured market." They will, but will they have the advantage of assured prices. Under the Bill the price is guaranteed to the farmers only for three years. The price is fixed at 54/- for that period, and after that the price is left to the free play of supply and demand. That is, in other words, that the factories can pay the lowest possible price at which they can get beet root. It is an excellent thing to have an assured market.
On a point of explanation, I have not read the report myself yet, but I think if the Deputy reads on he will find that I was recommending Van Rossum's offer, and I pointed out that it included something like a guaranteed fixed price for ten years. It is three years in the Bill, and that is why I was speaking in recommendation of that particular offer.
I cannot refer the House to this particular quotation. I understood Deputy Professor Magennis was referring to the general statement, but if he did refer to the Van Rossum's project, and pointed out that it guaranteed a price for ten years, I would say that the Deputy was right, that that scheme did guarantee an assured market. That is an important matter, and should have been considered by the Executive Council in deciding to what company they would give the subsidy in connection with the establishment of this particular industry. In my opinion, another very important reason why this matter should be considered by a Committee of the House, is that many statements have been made with regard to alternative schemes, or schemes which might be established at the same time. We have heard about the Skoda factory scheme, and Deputy Professor Magennis has spoken about the Van Rossum scheme, regarding which he has given a great many figures. We have the statement of the Minister for Finance that these schemes were not acceptable, and were not as good as the scheme put before the Ministry by the Belgian firm. Many statements have been made on this subject, and letters have appeared in the Press. I am not in a position to say whether they are correct. There may be something in them, and there is the possibility that if plans put forward by other people had been accepted a considerable saving might be made for the State in connection with the establishment of this industry. I maintain that before the Dáil passes this Bill it has a right to know what these schemes are.
The Dáil has got all the details in connection with the scheme.
I think the details given were not sufficient to enable the House to form a judgment. I would ask the Minister himself if he were faced with the question of choosing between three factories to be established in the country, and if he had to judge by a bare outline given in a hurry in the House, would he be in a position to make up his mind in a quarter of an hour as to which was correct?
It has been going on for three days.
The Minister was not speaking for three days. There are possibilities that a considerable saving might have been made if one of the other schemes had been accepted. It is stated to-day in a letter in the Press that a considerable saving might have been made if the Skoda scheme had been accepted.
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but there is one consideration that ought to appeal to him as a farmer. Under the Skoda scheme the farmer was to get 42/- per ton for beet, while under the other scheme he is guaranteed 54/-.
I am quite aware of that, but that argument is not going to make me change my point of view—
I did not think it would.
It is stated in this letter that the Skoda people put forward a scheme; that while other firms got chances of making other offers and suggestions the Skoda people got no such opportunity and that, without any such opportunity, they were informed that their scheme was not considered satisfactory. It is quite possible that arrangements might have been made with the Skoda people whereby, with a slight increase in the subsidy, they might guarantee the same price to the farmer as under the scheme which has been accepted. Judging by the statement in the paper it would appear that undue favour was shown to certain schemes when the promoters got an opportunity of revising their original estimates that the other promoters did not get.
Deputy Magennis suggested that there was another company which was in a position to establish a factory — the Van Rossum Company. He gave us certain figures with regard to that syndicate. The figures are given in the statement made to the Dáil but not in tabular form, which would permit one to judge effectively, by comparison with the other schemes, as to whether it is sound or otherwise. But it should have been considered as an alternative scheme, and if a saving could be made to the nation it ought to have been accepted. The promoters of these schemes should be given opportunity to meet the representatives of the Government and to vary their schemes, if they are prepared to do so, in order to meet the requirements of the State.
I would suggest that if there is any suspicion that there has been any favour shown, and that some firms did not get the opportunity that the others got, it is only right that the Dáil should understand by means of a Committee if things are as they should be, and if the best offer from the soundest firm has been accepted. As regards the statements made that this scheme is a subsidy for the farmer as against a subsidy for the factory owner, I maintain that by far the greater benefit will eventually result to the factory rather than to the farmer. The factory gets a subsidy of approximately £2,000,000. The Minister for Finance states that the factory is expected to produce 86,000 tons of sugar in ten years. If seven tons of sugar beet will yield one ton of sugar, it would require 602,000 tons of beet to produce these 86,000 tons of sugar. Taking this at an average price of 40/-, that is equal to £1,200,000 for the period. Taking the free market value of beet at 30/- per ton, that is £903,000. That would be the figure if there was no subsidy for beet. These are only estimates. I understand that the market value of beet on the Continent is something like 35/- per ton. If from £1,200,000 you subtract £903,000, that leaves a sum of £297,000. I maintain that that is what the farmer gets out of the £2,000,000, and that the balance goes to the factory. Now, with regard to employment, I think the amount of employment given in connection with this industry has, to a certain extent, been exaggerated. The actual employment given in the factory is nothing extraordinary. I think it was Deputy Egan to-day who stated that it would employ up to 250 people.
500 people.
That is very much larger than the figure with which I was supplied by an official of the Department of Agriculture. But I will take that figure as being correct. That is not a great deal of employment. The question of employment will depend largely on the amount of extra employment on the land. And the extra employment on the land depends, in my opinion, on whether beet will be grown as an addition to, rather than as a substitute for, the present green crops. I do not think anybody can state at present to what extent beet will be grown as an addition to rather than as a substitute for the present green crops. If we take it that beet is to be grown as an addition, it will certainly have the effect of increasing employment in country districts. My view of it is that where the farmer at present grows, say, an acre of green crops on a 25-acre farm that is probably about the average of green crops grown — if he grows an additional acre of beet he will, in my opinion double his area under cultivation. Where formerly he had four acres under cultivation under a four-course rotation, he will now have eight acres under cultivation. It will double his root crop, and double his grain crop and double his new grass crop also. It will have the effect of increasing employment in such cases. That, of course, will also affect the carrying capacity of his land. The question arises whether he will be able to carry as many cattle under this system as under the old system, where he had more grass and less cultivation. It involves the question whether it will pay the farmer to grow grain to sell. It will double the acreage of land under oats or barley, and there will undoubtedly be a surplus for sale. If there is not a good price paid for the grain crop, the farmer will lose something on the grain crop which he has to sow as a result of the cultivation of beet.
I only put these matters forward tentatively. I maintain that these are things that should be considered by a committee. The ultimate effect they would have on agriculture should be considered, so that when we would be voting on the scheme we would have a fairly reasonable idea as to the general effect on the agricultural industry. We have not had an opportunity of considering that. We have not had an adequate opportunity of visualising the changes which it is likely to bring about in the agricultural industry. To put a Bill of this kind hastily through the House, placing a lot of undigested figures before Deputies, is not the way that a scheme involving the expediture of £2,000,000 should be dealt with. The expenditure is likely to be more than that, because I understand from the speech from the Minister for Finance that it is probable that this subsidy will not cease at the end of ten years. In all probability a reduced subsidy will have to be given at the end of that period. If this factory is found to be a success, and if other factories are established, they will have to be subsidised also. That means that the State will have to embark on a large scheme of subsidies, entailing a considerable expenditure of money. As Deputy Magennis said, it will mean dipping very deeply into the pockets of the taxpayer in the future. The question for the House to decide, in my opinion, is: Is it worth while? Will the money to be spent on the sugar factory be spent to the best advantage? Are there not possibilities of spending £2,000,000 in other ways, which would benefit agriculture to a greater extent, benefit industry to a greater extent, and give an equal, if not greater amount of employment. If there are possibilities of that kind — and I would suggest that there are possibilities——
Would the Deputy indicate some of them?
I will walk into the trap, as the Minister desires it. I will indicate a couple of possibilities for the improvement of agriculture. There is a very insufficient sum included in the Agricultural Vote for agricultural education. There is an insufficient sum being spent on cow-testing associations. I only give those as examples of how money might be usefully expended, which would result in increased production and increased employment.
Would these schemes give increased employment?
Increased agricultural production is bound to give increased employment. All increases in production along the lines that the Ministry is following at the present time — dairy produce, poultry products, cattle feeding in the winter, and matters of that kind, for the purpose of providing food — is bound to increase employment. Agricultural education is starved at the present time. Not nearly enough money is spent on it, having regard to the value of the agricultural industry to this country. Statements were made by Ministers here which I find it difficult to reconcile. We should have an opportunity of finding out what exactly was meant when these statements were made. The Minister for Finance states that coal in the sugar beet factory would represent 50 per cent. of the cost of manufacture. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture states that the percentage for coal would amount to between 14 and 25 per cent.
Would the Deputy turn to the end of the Official Report and read the Minister's correction of the figure which he gave.
I have read the Minister's correction, but it is not sufficiently clear. I am not saying that an incorrect statement was made, but I believe that Ministers ought to be given the opportunity of reconciling these statements.
They have been reconciled.
They have not been reconciled to my satisfaction.
I did not suggest that.
An opportunity should be given to have these figures reconciled, and we should be quite satisfied that these statements are not made loosely, but that there is definite information behind them. We have had figures given with regard to cost of production and it is very hard to reconcile them. The Minister for Finance said that 50 per cent. of the cost of manufactured sugar would be represented by coal. Deputy Egan said that one ton of coal would manufacture one ton of sugar. According to statements made in this House, the cost of production is only £32,000 for an 8,000 ton factory. The Minister for Agriculture says from £90,000 to £140,000. There seems to be something loose in those calculations, if we take the statement by Deputy Egan that a ton of coal will manufacture a ton of sugar. There have been conflicting statements made, too, with regard to the subsidy. The Minister for Finance said, in making comparisons between the British subsidy and the Irish subsidy, that the British subsidy was 15/8½ per cwt. of sugar, plus 10d. for molasses. We know that the Irish subsidy is 23/-. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture worked out the British subsidy at 19/9, plus 2/1. Those are statements which require to be explained. If the Minister for Lands and Agriculture is right, the Minister for Finance cannot be right. If this scheme is to be adopted, I would suggest that the idea promulgated by other Deputies should be carried out — that the Government should have a right when they invest £2,000,000 in this industry to have some voice in its control. They should have some representation on the board of directors. In the other schemes put before the Government they would have representation on the board of directors.
What good would that be?
It might be minority representation, but minority representation is sometimes useful.
What for—to create friction?
It is a matter of opinion what the effect would be, but it might not necessarily be friction. It might be very useful from the point of view of criticism and from the point of view of seeing that the factory was being run as it ought be run and that the farmers' interests were not being neglected by the board of directors. In the scheme submitted to the Government by Van Rossum, they would have representation of two out of five. I think that that should be an argument in favour of the acceptance of such a scheme.
Is that in the Van Rossum scheme?
Yes.
It is not in the Van Rossum scheme. It is in the Skoda scheme.
That is right.
That is the 42/- scheme.
I am not advocating the 42/- price to the farmer. That was a nice point for the Minister to make, but I maintain that the promoters of that scheme should have had an opportunity of having it examined.
They should have an opportunity of rectifying the scheme in regard to prices for farmers, and other matters, if they were willing to do so. I believe undoubtedly that if they do not rectify the scheme in that regard it will be a fatal objection, and it will tend to prevent the acceptance of the scheme. If we are to believe statements that we see in the papers, they did not get an opportunity doing so. Now, the success of this scheme will depend finally upon the farmers; it will depend upon whether the farmers will be prepared to undertake the growing of this beet in sufficient quantities to warrant the establishment of a factory. They are going to get a guaranteed price for certain number of years — for three years. I would suggest that if the factory people are going to get a subsidy of ten years, there is no reason why the farmers should not get a guaranteed price for ten years.
They are getting it for six years, at all events.
No, for three years. The Bill says that the farmers are to get a guaranteed price for three years. I do not know how the Deputy makes it six years.
That is right, but there are other factors.
Mr. HOGAN
That is perfectly correct.
The success of the scheme depends upon whether the farmers will enter into it wholeheartedly and will take a keen interest in it. If the idea of establishing a sugar factory is a sound idea, there is no reason why it should be a contentious matter. If it is supported by the Government, and if, eventually, it is decided that a sugar factory is required, I believe the House should unanimously support the project. An effort should then be made to encourage the farmers to engage in the production of sugar-beet, and in the better cultivation of land. But we should give the farmers every opportunity of understanding what they are to do, and what the effect will be on the industry. The farmers should have some opportunity of knowing whether this is the best paying game if they embark on it. The question is not a sentimental one; it must and will be a financial question, for the most part, amongst the farmers. The whole point for the farmer is whether cultivating sugar beet will pay better than the present system of farming. We have different conditions here from those that exist in Norfolk. Norfolk is a county with tillage traditions; it is suited to tillage and not to grazing. It is much easier to get farmers in a county like that to engage in the growing of beet than it would be in this country, where we have few areas devoted to tillage in the sense in which Norfolk is devoted to tillage.
The growing of beet may involve the breaking up of large areas of grass land. The farmer will have to be assured that it will pay him to break up this land, good quality grazing land, before he will undertake the cultivation of beet. He should have a reasonable assurance that there is profit in beet-growing and that there will be an advantage from the point of view of succeeding crops. If that can be made clear to the farmers, I believe they will take up beet-growing. It would not be right to face the farmer with a scheme which the Government may think is a sound one and will be for the eventual benefit of the country, without explaining fully its immediate effects and the results likely to be achieved in the course of a number of years.
It is possible that if the farmer embarks on this scheme, in five or six years he may find himself, having all his land tilled and his system of farming changed, faced with the attitude of a factory which has the monopoly, which may give whatever price it likes, and over which the Government have no control, as it would have no representation on the Board of Directors. That would be an unsatisfactory position for the farmers. I contend that we have not got sufficient information. Until we get more information, until we know that the best scheme—the scheme more suited to this country— has been adopted by the Government, until we know the possibilities of this scheme in its application to Ireland, until the Dáil is convinced that it is a feasible scheme, and that the establishment of the factory will tend to improve agricultural industry and increase the wealth of the country, we should not proceed with any undue haste. We should like to have more information in regard to the promised improved financial and social conditions under this scheme for the establishment of a sugar beet factory.
Rather than interrupt the Deputy. I delayed until he had finished. Perhaps I will be permitted, on a point of explanation, to clear the Deputy's mind in regard to a matter on which his mind was obscured by reading the report of my speech. I read to the House a balance sheet submitted to the Government by the Van Rossum group. In that balance sheet it was computed that for 5,000 acres under beet tillage there would be 50,000 tons of beets and 5,000 tons of sugar; for each ton of sugar, a ton of coal and a half-ton of limestone. Now, the Deputy seems to be under the impression that the computation of one ton of coal for one ton of sugar is very imaginative, or that it was an illusory thing that Deputies on these Benches had devised out of their own heads. Those are the figures of a firm engaged in the production of sugar from sugar-beet in Holland—one of the greatest firms in Europe. I think the Deputy is certainly misreading the report if he is under the impression that I invented the figures. That is not one of my propensities.
I thought that was what the Deputy had read.
Either it is in the report of my speech or it is not. The Deputy purported to read from my speech. He referred a few moments ago to what he called a statement of mine which did not set out detailed figures. I read the balance sheet, every figure in the balance sheet, and the Deputy is probably unaware that Deputy Johnson circulated afterwards a sheet of figures based upon a combination of those figures and the figures of the Minister.
May I explain that I was aware of the fact that the Deputy had read out what was part of the balance sheet of the company. I maintain that as the statement was not set out in tabular form, and was interlarded between other matters in the debate, it is not possible to understand it.
But Deputies understood it.
I would like to call Deputy Magennis's attention to the fact that his statement quotes the price of sugar at 50/- per cwt., which is altogether in excess of the price at the present time.
I expressly stated that the date of the letter was the 19th January, and that some of the figures in it, for example, the price of sugar and coal, would necessarily require revision. These are the exact words I used.
I would like to ask one question, as this matter is rather confusing. Are the figures under reference now, and the figures read by Deputy Magennis, the figures of the Van Rossum group or the Lippens group, in the Bill?
They are the Van Rossum figures.
With so many authorities and so many experts on the sugar-beet industry in the Dáil, a Deputy such as I am feels very timid entering into the discussion. However, I would like to say that I regard this Bill as a further big effort on the part of our Government to develop the Saorstát industrially and economically with, of course——
And agriculturally.
Mr. HENNESSY
And, I was going to say, with the eagle eye of the Minister for Agriculture on the need of developing the agricultural industry. I therefore beg to support the measure. Less than twelve months ago the matter of establishing a sugar-beet industry in this country was not before the people as a practical proposition. In the early autumn of last year a number of practical farmers — I wish to lay emphasis on these two words—and practical business men in County Cork met and formed an association called the North Cork Industrial Development Association.
The North Cork Militia.
Their successors.
Mr. HENNESSY
Amongst this number there were, as I say, practical farmers, men who had experimented for a number of years on the growth of sugar-beet, its sugar content, its high food value, its manurial value and all that. By a series of lectures and public meetings and so on, they focussed the attention of the people of Ireland and they focussed the attention of the Government on the importance of establishing a sugar beet industry in the Saorstát. I have no doubt that the Dáil and the country appreciate the work of that Association, and will mark such appreciation in a practical way by assisting our new industry, by co-operating with the Government and the people in making this industry a success. I understand there are certain essentials for the success of the sugar-beet industry in the Saorstát. First of all, there is the question of transport facilities. The factory must be built within easy reach of rail or water transport facilities. Then there is the question of the quality of the soil. I understand that the soil must be rich, loamy soil, that it must be deeply tilled and enriched, and that you must have a good water supply. Of course, a matter of great importance is the co-operation of the farming community. That is very important, because in the first years of operating or working such a factory, we must have within reach of the factory or within the area in which it is established, I understand, 5,000 acres of land under cultivation for beet.
I say without any hesitation that in Cork County you have all these essentials available. I do not put that forward with the object of establishing a prior right for Cork beyond any other part of the Saorstát. I do say with such an assurance from a very large number of Cork farmers and business people — in North, South, East and West Cork and all the parts of the county which I have travelled during the last twelve months—that you have there the main essentials. I think that the firm whose offer the Government have now accepted, Messrs. Lippens of Belgium, with the co-operation of the Government, particularly the Minister for Agriculture, who has the records and statistics at his disposal, should give such a place, where there are such assurances, some consideration and I leave it at that.
The establishment of this industry will be a big fillip to the agricultural industry. We have, first of all, an extra 5,000 acres to be tilled. We must have deeper tillage and we must have richer tillage. The grower of this crop is assured a guaranteed price at the factory for three years, at all events. This gives him a net profit, in the first instance, of at least anything up to £11 per acre. We must not stop there; there are other calculations to be taken into consideration. We have the dried slices, which are sold back to the farmer for a few shillings per cwt.; I might say for a few shillings per ton, because I am informed by an expert authority that a few cwts. of these slices yield a ton of pulp when soaked in water. This ton of pulp has a very high food value and a very high fattening value for cattle. As other Deputies have already pointed out, it has also a very high milk producing value. The land, I am informed, is of such a rich state after this crop that the cereal crops put in afterwards will give a very much greater yield. The leaves from this beet crop have a very high manurial value. The crop is pulled in the autumn, and the leaves are left on the field generally and ploughed in. These give very good results to the crops sown afterwards.
We have also got to consider the question of how this matter affects the problem of unemployment. It has been mentioned by other Deputies before. Surely we must agree that an industry of this nature must, in the ordinary course of its operations, absorb a large number of our unemployed. We have, first of all, a large acreage of tillage, which must necessarily carry with it a large number of men to work it. In all its stages—first the planting, the thinning, the cleaning and the pulling—a number of men will be required. There will be the building of the factory which will cost something about £3,000,000. Surely that will give employment to a large number of men. Afterwards you will have to employ people to operate all the machinery. From that point of view this question deserves the serious consideration of the Dáil. There is on the Order Paper to-day a motion in the name of Deputy Figgis, the effect of which is that this Bill should be held up for some indefinite period.
That is not so. Read the motion.
The date is fixed as the 25th June.
Mr. HENNESSY
When we get to the 25th June we will probably have reached the date for the adjournment of the Dáil for a period of three months, and goodness knows where we will find our factory when we come back. I submit that if the Dáil were to agree to appoint the committee suggested, it would come back with a report assuring us of what we have been told already by the Minister for Agriculture, and of what the Departmental Committee, appointed by the Government, reported on. That committee, after going exhaustively and minutely into the matter, reported that the offer of M. Lippens was the very best proposition that could be put forward. I do not think that the Dáil could accede to the request to hang up this Bill in view of the fact that we have 50,000 unemployed in our midst.
We all know from the views expressed from the Farmers' benches that agriculture needs a fillip. We know, too, that large numbers of our young people are compelled to emigrate to America week after week to the extent of about 25,000 a year. In view of these facts, I do not think that we should hold up a great constructive measure of this kind. From the conclusions arrived at by the Departmental Committee, which examined this question in all its aspects, I think we should proceed at once with the scheme outlined. We have had the experiences gained by other countries in this matter of beet cultivation put before us. We have learned of the great wealth which they have derived from the carrying on of this industry, and, therefore, I say we should not proceed slowly in this matter.
The experience of Great Britain has been quoted for us. We have seen how the Government of that country hunted over the world to get the best men and the most reputable firms for the purpose of establishing more factories, of the kind we are discussing, over there. That ought to be a sufficient encouragement for us to go on with this scheme. I trust, therefore, that the Dáil will urge on the Government to proceed as quickly as possible with this scheme, and, further, that it will press on the Executive Council to grant not merely a licence to the firm of M. Lippens for the setting up of one factory, but that if other reputable firms can be secured, it will grant similar licences to them. In my opinion, we have room in the Saorstát for a second factory of this kind. I have no doubt myself that this is a kind of industry which will receive the co-operation of all classes of people in the country, and that it can be made a great success.
This Bill contains two or three features which should commend themselves to the Dáil as well as to the farmers of the country and others who may be called upon to assist in the establishment of this industry. We find in the Bill that the period for which the guarantee is to be given to assist the establishment of this industry in the country is a limited one, and also that the firm which is to receive the subsidy is to be compelled under Section 3 (4) to produce each year a balance sheet showing the profit or the loss made or incurred in connection with the working of the factory. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture is, to a large extent, responsible for the fathering of this measure. I would urge on him to get the principle of having a balance sheet produced, extended to other industries as well as this one, upon which the farmers depend for a livelihood.
Would the Deputy give an example?
I think instances were given to the Minister before, and I hope he has not forgotten them.
Mr. HOGAN
Give one now.
I refer to the profiteering of concerns like Messrs. Guinness, upon which the farmers are dependent to a very large extent in connection with the production and sale of a certain crop. I think that is one instance that was brought to the notice of the Minister on some occasions. The principle of having a balance sheet produced, as regards the industry we are now discussing, is I think a commendable one.
Mr. HOGAN
And in Guinness's?
Yes, if you agree to extend the principle in that direction. It is all very well to say that a price is guaranteed for a limited period. The price is fixed at 54/-, but that figure does not enable one to arrive at a conclusion as to what will be the profit, if any, derived by the producers of the raw material. I think the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance must admit that, to a large extent, the profit made will depend largely on the form of transport used — that is to say, the cost of having the raw material carted from the place where it is produced to the factory, wherever that factory may be. On that point Deputy Heffernan gave an instance as to what the cost would be. The figure he gave was, I think, an imaginary one. He said that the cost of carrying the material from the farm to the factory would be at the rate of 5/- per ton over a distance of 10 miles. I doubt if any figure of that kind should be accepted by the Dáil. I think the example the Deputy took was an unfair one, for the reason that the distance he selected was so short, and also because he did not produce any facts to substantiate the figure he gave. Neither did he quote the authority he relied upon for mentioning that figure. I think the figure he quoted would be a ridiculous charge for carrying an article, such as we are dealing with, over the distance that was given.
Speaking for myself on this matter, I am of opinion that a highly speculative proposal of this kind, which involves the expenditure of the taxpayers' money to the extent of two million pounds, should come before the House on non-Party lines. Deputies should be afforded an opportunity of satisfying themselves as to the proposals contained in this Bill by having access to the facts and figures on which these proposals are based. In saying that, I am not attempting to cast any reflection whatever on the members of the departmental committee who considered this matter. According to the Minister for Agriculture, they spent five or six months going into this question. They travelled to Belgium, to the South of France, to England, and to other places for the purpose of making inquiries. I think, however, it will be admitted that no matter how able departmental officials may be as regards dealing with figures — it will be generally admitted that those who have to look after balance sheets and so forth in the Ministry of Finance are very able men — that nevertheless they have not the outlook, on a matter of this kind, of the practical farmer. They are out of touch with the farmers of the country, and they have no responsibility to the electors of the country.
For that reason I suggest that the proposals contained in this Bill should be referred to a committee such as Deputy Figgis suggests in his motion. Only on Sunday last I happened to be in a district in my own constituency. There was a meeting called there for the purpose of having a lecture delivered to the farmers of the area on the advisability of supporting the proposals outlined in this Bill. They were invited to support these proposals, assuming that the factory would be established in the immediate vicinity. I may say that I have no interest and no concern in the site that may be selected for this factory. To show the amount of interest that was taken in the meeting, I might mention that it was attended by less than fifteen farmers. The area in which the meeting was held is a very large tillage one. I was not present at the meeting, but my brother was, as well as some friends with whom I discussed the matter later. I mention that as an indication of the lack of interest that is taken by farmers in this particular proposal. That is one reason why the proposals in this Bill should be submitted to a committee for consideration, a committee on which farmers would have representation and would be assisted by financial experts—representatives of the Government. The proceedings of such a committee would enable the farmers to satisfy themselves that everything that has been said on this matter from the Government benches is correct. No matter how much one may regret it, the fact is this: that the average outlook of the farmers of this country, and it will take a long time to change that outlook, is the outlook of what one may describe by the first line in the chorus of an old song: "I'm following my father's footsteps, I'm following my dear old dad."
Mr. HOGAN
They have not got much lead in this debate.
If the Minister, by that interruption, means that he has not himself given them much lead, I will accept it as a fact. If all the speeches of Ministers and if the speech of Deputy Professor Magennis, who spoke for two hours and twenty minutes, could be circulated by the Minister for Finance and placed in the hands of every farmer it might bring home to them more clearly what is good and bad in the scheme outlined in the Bill. However, Deputy Magennis's speech will not get into the hands of farmers for, as we know, the Minister for Finance, on a previous occasion, refused to spend money to circulate such eloquent speeches to the libraries in the villages and the towns of Ireland. Although Professor Magennis did make a very eloquent speech the average farmer would say: "What does Deputy Magennis know about it? Has he earned his living on a farm? Has he ever handled a pick or shovel? What is his particular knowledge of the productivity of the land of this particular area, or this or that particular farm?" It would take a good deal more than the eloquence of Deputy Professor Magennis to alter the mentality of the ordinary farmer as we know it.
The Minister for Finance, in making his Budget speech, indicated that this measure was about to be introduced, and he said, in the course of his speech, and subsequently confirmed it in the debates upon this measure, that the site for the factory could not, and would not, be selected until the measure was passed. We have it from Deputy Egan to-day that up to the present moment there has been no indication, either from the Minister himself or from any member of the Government, that the site of the factory has been selected; we have not the faintest idea of where the factory is to be built. I have heard one town named, and I know that the transport facilities, of that particular town, are certainly not convenient for the purpose of the carrying of raw materials to the factory. I heard another place named by a learned Senator, and the particular place mentioned is a place where there is very little, if any, tillage at all. I think after all when one comes to sum up this whole measure, and to give a fair and reasonable and considered opinion, one will have to know where the factory is likely to be before one can, with any certainty, express an opinion as to whether the proposal is likely to fail or succeed. We do think, however great the disadvantage is, that if we had a committee of the Dáil on which farmers and representatives of all parties were sitting, some information might be given to the Dáil, as the result of the consideration of this whole Bill and what it contains, by a Committee.
Of course the amendment to be moved by Deputy Figgis, which I intend to vote for, is the only way out of that and, although I do not mean in any way to throw cold water upon the proposed amendment, yet in the form in which it is moved, it is silly and impracticable. It states that the Committee should report back to this House not later than the 25th June. I do not believe in the long-winded commissions. I believe they are useless except for the purpose of killing agitation and getting the thing for which the Commission is appointed out of people's minds by continuous talk and the publication of the evidence in the Press. There is only one Minister in this House who can be commended upon his courage in adopting the recommendations of commissions, and that is the Minister for Justice. I believe the recommendations of every Commission he has set up, whether amended or not, have been given effect by him.
Now there was one Commission set up by this House, of which I happened to be a member, and the recommendations of that Commission, if carried out, would have a very great bearing upon the success or otherwise of this scheme. It is generally admitted, from continental experience, that water transport is the best means of carrying material from the farm to the factory. Eighteen months ago a Commission was set up to bear in mind matters of this kind and that Commission made recommendations to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce which the Minister has still in his pigeon-holes. Perhaps he may be called upon to say something about the matter before the Dáil adjourns.
Deputy Egan made some remarks with regard to the amount of employment that would be given as a result of the proposals contained in this Bill. He said, if I understood him correctly, that one additional man would be employed for every ten acres under cultivation. That means that of 60,000 or 70,000 unemployed about 500 would be taken off the list and put on to the production of beet. Although that deals with the question of unemployment, in a small way, I regard that aspect of the case as only one of the many good points contained in a Bill of this kind. What the ordinary man in the street cannot understand to-day is why the Government are engaged in all those rather speculative investments, rushing them through this House — the Shannon scheme and the sugar beet scheme — whereas much more useful work could be done by carrying out drainage schemes.
Other speculative things?
If the Minister for Finance wants the House and the country to understand that drainage work is speculative——
In exactly the same sense as the Shannon scheme is speculative.
I voted for the Shannon scheme, but I believe there are things of very much greater concern to the average man than speculation, such as whether in three years time he will be shaved in bed by electricity. Deputy Egan said that he agreed with Deputy Figgis in regard to the claim put forward for representation on a board of a company which was formed by the people finding the money. I have very grave doubts as to whether minority representation on any board, in such circumstances, would have any great effect. It would have the effect that on such a board there would be one man who would find out whether the balance sheet and accounts prepared and circulated were accurate and were correctly prepared. It might have that one advantage, but it would have the disadvantage that the representative would be there as the representative of a minority and that he would be perfectly useless for the purpose of enforcing their views on questions of policy. Deputy Egan rightly said the whole risk involved in this measure was the risk as to whether the necessary amount of beet would be grown by the farmers concerned, who are the people looked upon as producers of the raw material. I agree absolutely that that is the risk, and if that is the risk what steps are the Government taking, or what steps have the Ministry for Lands and Agriculture taken, to carry out an educational campaign in regard to this matter? If this measure is to come into operation and the factory is to be built by the time the Minister for Finance has stated, the time at the disposal of the Ministry for such educational work is very short. We all know that up to the present no work of this kind has been done except by shopkeepers or people in the district where the factory is likely to be set up who will probably get some advantage from it.
The publicans.
Yes. We know that that is the fact.
I deny that, as far as we in Cork are concerned.
I do not make any accusations at all, but I think it is a generally accepted fact that these are the people who are going around and doing the stunting in the matter.
Propaganda.
Yes, propaganda. But if the scheme contains anything that is of any use to the nation, and I am not saying that it does not, and if it is to work out successfully, it is the duty of the Government to send round the inspectors, lecturers and other people at their disposal to educate the people, who must be educated if they are to give the necessary support to this proposal.
It is difficult to make an appeal to the deaf.
Apparently, if the North Cork Co-operative Society, or whatever they are, are so enthusiastic about this proposal, there is very little doubt that, if they get the opportunity, if the surroundings are suitable, if they will only make canals or provide a suitable form of transport, there is sufficient influence in this House and in the Government to secure that the factory goes to Cork, as everything else did go to Cork. I do not want to throw any cold water on this measure, but I believe there is very little enthusiasm in the country in regard to it, and there is very little enthusiasm even in the ordinary way on the part of the farmers to change their methods of working, unless it is demonstrated to them conclusively that by supporting a proposal such as is contained in this Bill they will do better than by producing some other article, or by feeding cattle, and I believe that although the Bill has been supported by the eloquence of Ministers, it will fail in the end unless something is done to bring it home to the farmers and the people concerned that the project will be good for them and good for the country. If the Bill is put to a Division I will vote for the Second Reading, on the clear understanding that I will subsequently vote for the motion standing in the name of Deputy Figgis, as the best way out of a most difficult problem.
I think everybody will agree that this or any other project started for the development of the country must have the support of every honest citizen who wants to see the country developed, and if it is criticised we all hope that the criticism will be honest and helpful. One has to take into account the fact that quite a good deal of enthusiasm for this scheme has come from some districts and towns, and it is true, as Deputy Davin has said, that amongst farmers generally there is no extreme excitement about the establishment of a sugar beet factory. Perhaps we might say that there is no great enthusiasm amongst farmers at present for the furtherance of their industry generally; conditions have not been so favourable for some time past, and we may agree that that has a psychological effect. But if the Dáil is to take the step of deciding to establish a factory such as this at a cost to the State of £2,000,000 we have to recognise — and I am in agreement with Deputy Johnson in this — that this £2,000,000 is to be spent in a very limited area. If the factory is to be a success very serious consideration will have to be given to the district where it is to be established. The transport facilities must be the best and the farmers must be the most up-to-date tillage farmers we have. We cannot afford to take a chance; we must, as far as possible, have all the elements that will make for success. We cannot go into a district where for ages tillage has been unknown. We would not get ploughmen and farm hands there to cultivate the land and handle a heavy crop in such a way as would enable the farmers to get the most out of this industry. All that has to be taken into account. From that point of view it is a very serious matter indeed.
When claims are made in this House, or by people outside, that the factory ought to be erected in this district or that, these people are thinking in the parochial way of which we have had experience in many things, and are disregarding the possibilities of the success or failure of this industry. That should be left aside. We should recognise that the factory must be established in the district where transport facilities will be of the best, in the district where the farmers are proven tillage farmers, and where the soil is suitable. All these conditions exist in certain districts. We have most highly scientific farmers, we have most intelligent farmers, and it is in the area where they are that this factory must be built. We are going to establish the factory in that district at a cost to the State of £2,000,000. It is right, and I agree that that is the district where it must be erected. But what we have to consider is that this will mean the cultivation of at least 5,000 acres extra, and that the cost to the State over a period of years for that will be £2,000,000.
took the Chair.
On a very small point of correction. The subsidy would not reach nearly £2,000,000 unless in the course of the ten years the average cultivation rose from five to ten.
We hope it will.
If it did not the amount of the subsidy would be proportionately less.
I understand. We have to consider the problem in this light: Is it worth while taking the chance? Everyone must admit that it is taking a chance. The growing of beet and the manufacturing of sugar on the scale we propose to do it is a problem that we have not faced up to in this country, and it is a problem that can only be solved by an experiment. We are in agreement on that. In a district where a factory is to be built I have no doubt whatever that there will be no trouble in getting the farmers to put the extra land under tillage. One reason for that is that the farmers, even for the short period of three years, will get a guarantee of a certain price for a certain crop.
For ten years.
No.
The Deputy says £2,000,000 for ten years as a subsidy. We cannot give a subsidy without the price to the farmer for the beet.
That is not in the Bill.
It is.
I am dealing with what is in the Bill. I am trying to point out that I feel there will not be any considerable trouble to get good farmers to till extra land. One reason is that here you have a guaranteed price for three years. At the present time a farmer is not guaranteed even for a month on the ordinary commodities he has to sell. Not from one week to another does he know what he is going to get. From that point of view, I think the farmer will be prepared to take his chance. He is taking a chance already every day in the week. There is hope in that direction, but there are other sides to it. I want to say to the Minister for Agriculture that if this House decides to pass this measure and we accept that the factory is to be set up in a certain area, everyone will recognise that agriculture and the people in the towns in a certain area are on the face of it, at least, getting a certain sum of money from the Government for a certain number of years. That is going to be one of the best agricultural districts in Ireland. We are told that the agricultural industry will get a fillip, a better chance than it has got. The Minister for Agriculture shakes his head when it is said that the town people are going to benefit.
In order to ascertain whether the sugar-beet industry can be a commercial proposition in this country, not only in that area, but in twenty others——
We will accept that it is to be proven in a certain district at a certain cost to the State.
Mr. HOGAN
Proved or disproved?
Proved or disproved that a sugar factory will be successful?
Mr. HOGAN
Sugar production from beet.
Sugar production is going to be made a success in this country. I take it the Minister does not deny that we are trying this in order that agriculture may get a fillip——
Mr. HOGAN
Certainly.
——that agriculture as a whole may get a fillip. Deputy Johnson asked if this two million pounds would not do more for agriculture in another way. To that question I would like an answer. It is a difficult thing for anybody to give an answer to as it has all to be proven yet. I am trying to point out to the Minister that I do not stand against the project, because that question must be put. I want to point out that while this is to be done in one district, and while there is every possibility that if it can be made profitable in one district or a success, there will be applications from other districts, and the Government may be asked later on to take further action for the erection of similar factories in other districts. I think there are poorer areas in this country where, I fear, this method of tillage cannot be made a success.
Mr. HOGAN
That is certain.
Unfortunately those are the areas which, from the agricultural point of view, are the worst off. They are the areas from the Minister's point of view which demand the most careful attention.
Not this form of attention.
Exactly. What I am trying to point out is that while we have under discussion here ways and means for improving the conditions of agriculture in Ireland and improving industry, we cannot take into account the conditions that exist in certain areas, work for them and leave out of our minds the fact that there are other areas poorer and worse off than those are, that we are not to take cognisance of that fact. Something ought to be done. I stand for this after consideration. The Minister—for more than twelve months—has gone to considerable trouble and expense in his Department in getting this project so far. At the same time, I want to urge on him to give consideration to the other problem that exists and continues to exist, whatever comes of the effort being made now. If justice is to be done, if the agricultural industry in the country as a whole is to be raised up, it is not to be raised up by the expenditure of a considerable sum of money in one area and in the waiting for years for the results, at the same time losing sight of the fact that there are other areas to which that method of improvement cannot be applied. If money is to be spent on one district, I want to urge on the Minister that while it may not be possible to spend this money, in the same way in another district for the improvement of the agricultural industry, let him make no mistake about it, if he gets off with this, he will be immediately faced with a problem that exists in a much more acute form than the one he is tackling in this. If he is not able to put before the House and the country means to solve the difficulties of agriculturists who live in districts not so well situated as North Cork, Athy, or places like those, his efforts to improve agricultural conditions in the country as a whole will have failed.
I regret exceedingly that the Minister has not extended this experiment of growing beet more considerably than he has done. There should be at least two or three stations in my opinion, because at the present moment he has really delivered himself over to the enemy. The sugar-beet company, if they are one combine, standing by themselves, will get as much as they possibly can out of the Government of the day. I fully accept all the scientific and Departmental conclusions so far as the sugar-beet is concerned. I am fully aware of the economic benefit that will accrue to the country from the growing of sugar-beet but the whole project is interesting to me as one of the cleverest examples of insidious propaganda which I know of. Why has England subsidised the sugar-beet growing? England has subsidised sugar-beet growing as a war measure in order that she may have sugar if she ever goes to war. We are going to help her. The millennium is approaching, and Deputy Johnson surely ought to be satisfied when the Minister for Finance carries the standard in the brotherhood of man. The Minister has left undone one thing that will be his ruin. He is absolutely dependent on the success of one experiment carried on by one firm instead of an experiment carried on by two or three firms. As to the taxation, I do not see why the taxation in so far as this sugar-beet experiment is concerned should not be confined to the area that benefits just as drainage schemes are. It would be really getting over the objections of a great number of Deputies in respect to the taxation of the whole country for the benefit of one district.
A question has been raised, and a certain figure given regarding the amount of employment that may be provided. I think it might be information for the Dáil if I were to say that a question was answered in the British House of Commons in July last regarding the number of persons employed during the manufacturing season, 1923-24. At the Cantley factory, which produced in that year 8,957 tons of white sugar, 795 men were employed. In the month of July, during the slack season, 251 men were employed at the factory. In the smaller factory at Kelham 4,322 tons of sugar were produced. In the manufacturing season 433 men were employed, and in the off season—July—83 men were employed. It is reckoned that, roughly, 1,000 acres of beet lead to the employment of 100 unskilled workers during the factory season. I think these figures answer one or two questions raised.
Mr. HOGAN
Was that unskilled labour?
No, the persons employed in the factory in the season, including all. I take it that the men employed during July would be those who are retained the whole year, the skilled men.
Mr. HOGAN
That is the position.
There are only a few points to which I would care to refer. It might be advantageous, perhaps, if the Minister directly concerned with the agricultural aspect of the project could reply. Perhaps the House would give leave for the Minister for Agriculture to reply. It is rather unusual to do so, but this is a Bill in which the Minister for Agriculture is as intimately concerned as any other member of the Dáil, and I think it would be more advantageous if he could reply to points raised.
I would like to mention two points. I do not think I need go into the question of the proportion of the cost of manufacture ascribable to coal. That deals with conditions we would regard as ideal, conditions not likely to be reached in this country for a very long time. On the question of the appointment of a director I would say that I do not see any particular advantage in that. The firms receiving the subsidy are bound to supply a profit and loss account, a balance sheet, and are bound to answer any questions put to them in explanation of the figures that appear in the accounts. A single director would have practically no greater power than that. Moreover, if the Government had a director appointed by them we might have political considerations, or an attempt to have political considerations intruded into the management of the business. I believe that you might easily have farmers who were carrying on negotiations, say, with the factory about the price of beet attempting to have the Government intervene in that matter, through the instrumentality of their nominee on the board, and other situations like that would arise. I do not think it would conduce to a better carrying on of the concern to have that director there. The people undertaking this matter must be left the management and control of it. They are going to put up the capital. They are to take the risks and they are the people who know how to do the work. I think there should be no attempt on the part of the Government to interfere with the management of the concern. If there is not going to be interference with the management of the concern I do not see that there is going to be any benefit by having someone put on the board of directors. It would be absolutely easy for a concern to give a director no more information than the Government could get outside.
On the other hand I do not think the Government should put up any part of the capital. I believe that the strength of our position must be, that it is a question of "no sugar, no subsidy." We should be no further committed than if sugar is produced to pay the subsidy. The other offer referred to would leave us in the position of putting up a factory, and of being at the mercy of anyone concerned in the industry, when the factory was up, to demand a higher rate of subsidy. It would be impossible for us, with £156,000 of the taxpayers' money sunk in the erection of the factory, to refuse to give terms that we would not consider now, rather than allow that big sum of money to go to waste. If we put any substantial portion of capital into the factory, then we put ourselves in a weaker position in dealing with the matter. I think the arrangement that has been come to is the more satisfactory arrangement in principle.
In regard to that particular point the Minister said "The Government should not put up any part of the capital." The Minister is aware that the Lippens group is making an effort to find capital in Dublin. A letter has been circulated to certain financial groups in Dublin in regard to the matter. Supposing it eventually transpires that the group fails to find the capital are we to take it that under no circumstances will the Government advance any money to the Lippens group if it fails?
That is purely hypothetical. I am simply stating that the preferable, the desirable position is that the Government should not be further involved than pledged to pay the subsidy if the sugar is produced. This investment is speculative in the sense that the sugar industry for some reason may fail to be established here. It is no further speculative than that. We know what has happened with regard to beet sugar in other countries. On the face of it there seems to be no reason why the sugar-beet industry, and the manufacture of sugar from it, should not be built up here as it was built up in other countries, nor why it should not have somewhat the same place in our agricultural system that it has in that system in other countries. We do not know whether a drainage work is really going to give value for money until after it is constructed. A great many drainage schemes, when completed, are not worth the money that has been spent on them. There is a great deal of the unknown in this whole matter, and there is no doubt that while, if all goes well, the undertakers may get big profits, on the other hand if they meet with difficulties they may get very meagre returns on their money. They may even sustain very big losses. There is no doubt that in a single season, if they fail to get a fairly adequate supply of beet, they would sustain a big loss, and it would be impossible for them to reduce overhead expense, wages, or general outgoing to any appreciable degree.
There is a complaint that the farmers have not been guaranteed over the whole period of 10 years. In fact, it is a guarantee, because, as I have stated, "no sugar, no subsidy." If they do not come to an arrangement with the farmers the whole working of the factory ceases. It means certainly that some reasonable arrangement must be come to. The problem is an agricultural one, and that is why I would prefer that the Minister for Agriculture should deal with it. If farmers here cannot make as good a thing out of the beet-sugar industry, after a reasonable period, as the farmers of other countries have done, then there is no future for the industry here. Certainly we must give this subsidy for this reasonable period, and I believe myself for some further period, at a reduced rate at the end of the ten years.
There are other elements of uncertainty in the matter. Deputy Johnson circulated a paper, in which he assumed a certain price for the sugar. It may be that the price for sugar would be higher. On the other hand, it may be considerably lower. I have figures showing the quotations per cwt. f.o.b. for the immediate shipment of sugar at Amsterdam—the kind of sugar generally used in the Saorstát. The price in January was 19/1½; in February, 19/-; March, 19/7; April, 19/4; in May it dropped to 17/7½; in June it dropped to 17/4½.
Is not that drop due to the remission of the duty?
No, free of duty.
F.o.b. at Amsterdam?
Yes. Of course, as has been stated, that is more than the manufacturer got. The manufacturer got less substantially than that. There was transport to the port, the putting on the ship, brokerage and other things.
Those are prices that would tend towards determining the price obtained here by the Irish manufacturer of sugar?
The freight and landing charges are not estimated at more than 1/- per cwt. It should be landed here and actually put on the quays at, say, 1/- more than that. But those figures indicate the price that the manufacturer might get. We know that in recent years, for instance, there have been great developments in the matter of the main competitor of beet sugar. Scientific processes have been applied, and there is a great expansion in the production of sugar. Any manufacturer taking on a project like this, and undertaking to expend a big capital sum in the erection of a factory, must necessarily have regard to these factors. It is not merely the question of the difficulty of starting here without skilled labour on the spot, or the difficulty of getting an adequate supply of good quality beet properly handled by the farmer. There are these world factors.
What we have done really is that we have accepted the best offer that was forthcoming. It was known by anybody, who cared to know, that we were considering giving a subsidy. Many people knew directly. They were in consultation with members of the Government, or with the inter-Departmental Committee. There were only two offers that merited consideration in the last result. There was another which has been a great deal talked about, but which practically was a bogus offer. It was given in such terms that it could not be accepted, and could not be considered. It did not look like a genuine transaction at all. It was an offer, as I say, that would have left us absolutely, necessarily, at the mercy of the Skoda Works. It would have meant, when we had practically paid for the erection of the factory, and when it would have appeared that the farmers would not grow beet for 42/-, they would have come along and said: "Nothing can be done unless you can increase the subsidy." Having spent the taxpayers' money in erecting the factory, we would have no alternative but to increase the subsidy and, perhaps, increase it to a sum very much in excess of what we are giving here.
I do not want to take advantage of the Minister, and I do not know anything about this except what I have read, but I merely wish to know if he does deliberately, not merely as part of a debate, stand by his definition of the Skoda offer as practically a bogus offer.
I do, quite deliberately. It was an offer that could not be regarded seriously, and it was an offer, as I have already said—I do not want to go too much into personalities—put in by a man who came here to exploit afforestation, and who proposed to exploit sugar; who, when he could not do that, might turn to anything. I suppose we would have heard of a proposal next to make coal out of turf.
Might I ask if this agent was entitled to act for the Skoda Company—if he was an agent or direct representative of the Skoda Company — and if any opportunities were given to the Skoda Company to amend the original offer?
No opportunities were given. It was a ridiculous proposal. It was a proposal that merited no consideration at all. It could not have been amended, unless he was informed that Messrs. Lippens had offered to do so and so. But there was nothing in it which could be amended. It was based on an entirely wrong foundation—a foundation that we put up the money for the factory and that they control it by five votes to three, as it were.
The Minister did not answer the question, if this man whom he says put up the bogus offer was a direct representative and acting for the Skoda Works. My information is that the Skoda Works are a very reputable firm, and I cannot understand how a man, who would be engaged in putting forward schemes for forestry and other things, could be acting directly as their representative. I should also like to ask the Minister if it was the intention of that firm to put in the machinery and plant at their own expense, and if this has not been mentioned in the statement which has been made by him.
There was a director of the Skoda Works here. I do not know myself what his proposals were, or what he said. I never saw him, or really saw anything from him.
Mr. HOGAN
I did.
I am dealing with the agent who put in the offer. I simply say that the offer put in by him was an offer which merited no consideration, which did not form a basis on which any bargain could be arrived at. There was, moreover, the general point against the Skoda Works, apart from this offer, that they are primarily manufacturers of machinery, and that if we were going to pay for a large amount of machinery, they had, at any rate, got some profit before anything was done. It was an offer that would be perfectly all right from their point of view, but would have been entirely unbusinesslike from ours. I do not want to deal with that any further.
As far as we are concerned, we had two offers that merited serious attention. We propose to take the best of these two offers. We put in the Schedule of the Bill the terms which M. Lippens is prepared to start the factory and manufacture sugar on. If we are going to have that industry tried out here, we certainly are not going to get better terms than M. Lippens has offered. As a matter of fact, the new British Finance Bill has actually altered the situation, as far as comparison between our terms and their own terms are concerned, because the increase from 1/11 per cwt. to 4/3 per cwt. in Colonial Preference applies to the home-produced sugar. The position will actually be, taking into account the increased Colonial preference, and the subsidy on molasses, which we do not give, that for the next year or two the sugar producers in Great Britain will actually be getting a subsidy, when reduced to comparable figures, which will be a net advantage of 2/2 more than we propose to give M. Lippens. The British figures will be:— 19/6, representing the subsidy; 4/3, representing Colonial Preference; 2/11, representing molasses. There is about one-third of a ton of molasses produced for every ton of sugar, and in the first four years the amount of the subsidy on molasses, of between 50 and 70 per cent. of sweetening matter, will be 8/10 per cwt.
took the Chair.
The position is going to be that for the first years of the working of the factory which is proposed to be set up here the subsidy allowed to the manufacturers will be less than that allowed in England, and they are at a further stage than we are here. They not only have experimented before the war, but they have a start of some years with their factories. I think it is purely nonsensical to talk of getting better terms than those which we have got, in view of facts like these. There are many important factors which might make it less profitable to carry on the manufacture of sugar beet here than in Great Britain. I have already referred to these factories. There will be the extra labour charges. Skilled labour will be more costly. These skilled artisans will come to a country to which they are not accustomed, they will be further from home, and moreover there will be the lack of local skilled labour, the question of repairs, the dealing with any breaks down, and then there will be the difficulty of the cost of coal. It is quite possible that the transport facilities will not be so good. Moreover, farmers are not accustomed to the growing of beet, and the difficulty of getting the increased supply will be greater than it is in England. I feel that the position is this: Here we have an offer and it is simply a matter of taking or leaving it. I believe that there is no prospect whatever of getting a better offer in the future and that, in fact, the rejection of this offer would make it impossible for us to get as good an offer. I believe, if you are to take some of the talk too seriously, it would greatly prejudice the getting of further offers. It is all very well for farmers to come along and talk about the inadequacy of 54/-. Some members are actually trying to have it both ways, that the 54/- is inadequate and that the subsidy is too much. If we are to continue setting out propaganda along those lines the position would be, that you would have nobody to take this up and take the risks. When commercial people take substantial risks and go into a new country and deal with people not accustomed to an industry, and when they are willing to put money into a factory there must be prospects of a good return for their money. It would be impossible to carry on an industry on any other system than to have people who are engaged in it elsewhere and who are experts in it to take control of a factory here. If the Government put up the money and put in managers, who would have no interest in it, we would be robbed at every turn. The thing would not pay. We could not negotiate with the farmers. Sugar might be produced at an enormous cost but nothing would be accomplished at the end to show whether the industry could, or could not, be established as a commercial proposition. I believe that we have gone in the only way in which this can be done. We have no preference for one individual over another. The only thing we have had in mind was to get it done as cheaply as possible for the country and to get it done by someone capable of doing it. We dealt with these offers as if they were tenders. We saw these individuals and suggested reductions, where their propositions were put in in reasonable form, and there were certain reductions from the original figures. Beyond that we dealt with the matter in the same way as tenders would be dealt with, and we have the tenders here now. We are not going to get any advantage by rejecting them and no one would come in if we rejected these tenders, and a period of years would have to elapse before it would be possible to get this experiment made.
I just want to intervene for a moment. May I mention an irrelevant matter, and that is, the question of the Skoda works. I dealt on one occasion with their representatives.
On a point of order, can the Minister for Lands and Agriculture speak twice? Should he not get the leave of the Dáil? I have no objection to giving my leave.
The Minister in charge of a Bill has the right to speak twice, and the Minister for Lands and Agriculture has, I understand, in my absence, been given permission to speak again.
Mr. HOGAN
I was going to suggest before that ruling was given that in the absence of the Speaker it was suggested by the Minister for Finance that there were certain agricultural matters to be dealt with and that, perhaps, the House would allow me to deal with them.
Deputy Murphy, who was then in the chair, told me that that is so.
I have no objection to allowing the Minister to speak twice. It was merely on a point of order that I mentioned that the leave of the Dáil should be given.
I presume that the Dáil is willing to give leave to the Minister?
Agreed.
Mr. HOGAN
I dealt with the representatives of the Skoda Works here, and I want to say deliberately, that I would describe the proposals put up on behalf of the Skoda Works as bogus proposals. I say that deliberately, after examining them carefully. I say that there was scarcely a single paragraph which was not susceptible of two or three meanings, that there was hardly a single paragraph in these proposals which did not need some explanation, and we could not have any further dealings with people responsible for these proposals. Deputies will have to remember that the most important factor from our point of view in all these negotiations was to deal with firms whose reliability and standing were above reproach. I yield to other Deputies in their knowledge of the Skoda Works. They may be big people on the Continent, but we have to judge by results and not only by reports and by what we read in the papers of the people who put in tenders—not only of what we hear about them, but we have to judge them by the proposals themselves. I think that the actual proposals put in by any firm must be taken by us as a very good indication of the character of the firm. Judging the character of the Skoda Works by the proposals which they put in, we had to come to the conclusion inevitably, having regard to the reliability, standing and competence generally of the firm, that from our point of view we would not meet that firm again or discuss business with them. As I have said, practically every paragraph of these proposals is susceptible to two or three meanings, and the few things that emerge clearly from these proposals did not merit a second thought. I will remind the House of what they are again. The Government was to pay £150,000 down, or, in other words, to pay practically the cost of the factory, and the Skoda Works were to find practically all the balance when the factory was built. Would Deputies think of the implication of that on the question of the subsidy? The factory is there at our expense, and then we are to start to do business. The rest of the proposals are extremely loose. If it is found for some reason or other that the beet is not produced at the right price, difficulties present themselves, and we have to solve them with this company. Where our money is invested to the tune of £150,000 we are in an impossible position. It was proposed, in addition, that the Skoda Works would get three fifths of the profits, though they only put up two-fifths of the capital. In reference to any firm that put in proposals of that sort one must come to one of two conclusions, either that the people they are dealing with are fools, or that they themselves are foolish enough to think that we will not see it.
So far as control was concerned we were to put up three-fifths of the capital, and they were to have three fifths of the control, if I might put it that way. There was a proposal for some unknown reason that the Skoda firm were to lend this company in which they were interested £50,000 if required. The reason for this was not specified, but obviously interest would have to be paid on that £50,000, after having got whatever subsidy they liked, and after we had invested £150,000 in the factory, and after the factory had been built. That is to say, addition to having three-fifths of the profit they would also get interest on this £50,000 at a rate which they could practically fix themselves. The question of price was put in a most complicated form. The price to the farmers was a definite figure, but it was to be reduced by 1/- per ton if the price of sugar was reduced by 1/- per cwt. The price of sugar depends largely on the duty, and if the duty was reduced from 25/8, which it was at the time, then the firm would pay less for the beets, though there was no reduction in the wholesale price.
Is that quite a fair representation, that it was alleged when speaking on prices of sugar, that it was world prices and not merely local prices with the duty added?
Mr. HOGAN
We were in the position that it was extremely difficult to get the exact meaning of the proposals. So far as the English language meant anything, it meant that the basic price of 42/- per ton for beet was to be reduced by 1/- per ton for every 1/- per cwt. by which the price of sugar fell below 45/- per cwt. The proposal of the Skoda works was that there should be an increase of 1/- per ton in beet for every one shilling in excess of 45/- per cwt. realised by the factory for the sugar made—that there should be an increase of 1/- per ton for beets of 15½ per cent. sugar content for every one shilling in excess of 45/- per cwt. If the import duty is reduced the price in the open market will be reduced.
Is that their statement?
Mr. HOGAN
No. That was their proposal definitely. It meant that if there was an increase on the import duty they could pay less for the beet. If there was a decrease in the duty there would be a decrease in the price of sugar, and they could pay less for the beets.
I am afraid as it will appear in the official report it will seem that the Minister has read that statement out as the definite words of the Skoda firm. If that is not the case he should make that clear.
Mr. HOGAN
That may be. The proposal of the Skoda firm was that there should be a decrease in the price of beet if there was a decrease in the price of sugar, and on the actual figures a decrease of 1/- per ton for every 1/- in excess of 45/- per cwt. realised at the factory. I am not quoting their words; I am quoting their proposal in my words.
Why is the figure of 45/- quoted? Does that include the wholesale price plus the duty at that time?
Mr. HOGAN
It is 42/- plus 3/- transport charges to the factory.
Is 45/- the price of sugar, or the sugar-beet?
Mr. HOGAN
Sugar-beet. In any event, here you had a company sending in proposals, which started with the proposal that we were to find all, or practically all, of the capital, that they would find two-fifths of the capital when the factory was completed, and that they would get three-fifths of the profits, we to get two-fifths, and they to get the majority of the directorate and hence the control. In addition, for some unknown reason, their firm would be empowered to lend £50,000 to the corporation. Our attitude in regard to that is that it amounts to a bogus proposal.
The Minister for for Finance in his opening statement said that 45/- is the price of the sugar, and he went on to say: "Then there were provisions that the price to be paid to the farmers, which was low in the first instance, 42/- as against 50/- without a contract, and 54/- with a contract for three years, which will be paid by M. Lippens, should be reduced or increased by 1/- per ton for every shilling in the wholesale price of sugar above or below 45/- per cwt."
Mr. HOGAN
20/- plus 25/8 duty is the price of sugar. If there were not these objections at all, we were not prepared to do business with a factory which was primarily a sugar-beet machinery factory. Skoda Works, I understand, run certain factories on the Continent, but they are primarily makers of sugar-beet factory machinery. We would prefer to do business with a firm whose sole business is to manufacture sugar. There are obvious objections to doing that with a factory whose primary business is the manufacture of machinery. There is also this point, that these proposals were put up by a gentleman named de Berker who has been endeavouring to sell gold bricks in this country for the last year. I will read the note I made of his various activities:— Before Mr. de Berker interested himself in the sugar-beet industry in this country he was associated with other abortive schemes; when he originally submitted proposals relative to the sugar-beet industry he intimated that he had a capital of about £500,000 at his disposal. However, the first scheme emanating from Mr. de Berker which was submitted to this Committee involved the provision by the Government of all the capital. Some weeks afterwards he intimated that he was "backed" by the British and Allied Investment Trust Company of London; and when he came before us again, instead of formulating his proposals, as we had been given to understand he was prepared to do, he intimated he had come with a view of ascertaining what assistance the Government were prepared to give towards establishing a beet-root industry. Later on he came with this scheme on behalf of Skoda Company. He had made various suggestions to me, and in regard to these proposals on no single occasion was he able to justify the suggestions. The fact that these proposals were put in by de Berker, having regard to his previous history, cast suspicion on them at the beginning, but, as I said, if there were no other reason, the fact that Skoda's were manufacturers of machinery compelled us to come to the conclusion that under no circumstances would we do business with this firm, and certainly we would not do business on the lines of any proposal put forward by de Berker. The Dáil has heard the history of the negotiations with the other firms. We have given figures, the sequence of events, and the terms in regard to the subsidy and the price to the farmers. Perhaps a Farmers' Government, or some other Government, when they come into power may be able to do better. We could do no better than that.
From the agricultural point of view, I have to repeat that Deputies must remember that the history of the development of the sugar-beet industry in practically every country has been first the purely experimental stage. That has been going on in England for at least ten years. That has been the case in Holland, in Denmark, and in Sweden. While you had not exactly proposals of this sort, 50 or 60 years ago, when this industry was begun, it was begun in a purely experimental way. I am stating the position correctly when I say that not only in England but on the Continent there was, first of all, the purely experimental stage. There was, secondly, the stage when a subsidy was given, not to one factory but to a half-dozen factories, that subsidy being defended and justified as being, in all the circumstances, a commercial subsidy. Then there is the third stage—the stage which we and every country hope to reach—when you have not one, but a dozen, perhaps twenty, sugar-beet paying factories, self-contained and self-supporting. That has been the sequence in every country. We must remember that we are at the very beginning here. We are endeavouring to start a factory which is purely an experimental factory, and we are endeavouring to go through the purely experimental stage which is inevitable in the development in this country, at the smallest possible cost to the Government and to the taxpayer. That is the reason that we are suggesting one factory, and one factory only. We confidently believe that one factory, and one factory only, worked by a first-class man, with a subsidy big enough to provide for every possible contingency, would enable us to go through the experimental stage, and that in the long run we will have paid less for our experimental stage than England has paid for hers, or than continental countries have paid for theirs. But remember that this is a purely experimental stage. Now, having regard to that, what terms have we made? We have got terms in spite of the fact that in the eyes of continental capitalists or investors there is not the same security for the investment of capital in this country as in England. In spite of the fact that the cost of living in this country is higher than in England, in spite of the fact that the cost of transit is higher, in spite of the fact that coal is dearer and that the cost of the plant and so on are higher, in spite of the fact that we have no experience here of growing sugar beet, and that no one knows that the farmers will grow up to 5,000 acres of beet and keep on growing it for ten years—in spite of all these disadvantages—we have got terms in regard to this factory which, if they are considered for the three-years' period—and the three-years' period is the period in which the main difficulties arise—are in fact better than the English terms for the three years beginning from this year.
I suggest to the Dáil that so far from allowing Messrs. Lippens to drive an extremely hard bargain with us, it was a very successful piece of business for the State. I think we could not, in reason, be expected to do better than that. In spite of all the disadvantages in regard to security, in regard to our inexperience in the growing of sugar beet and in regard to the prices we have to pay, we have got terms which for the first three years are better than the English terms for the first three years. There is one doubt about that, and that is whether the present 2/4 extra as a colonial preference will last for the next two years. I have no doubt about it myself that it will. If it does, we have got terms for the three years' period which are better than the English terms for the corresponding period.
The business men who have spoken may expect a lot from us, but if they are expecting more than that, we cannot do it. Deputy Baxter's point of view may be right, and it really amounted to this, that it was a question altogether, apart from the terms we have got, whether sugar-beet is worth while in this country at all. That is an understandable point of view— whether without going into any experimental question, sugar-beet is worth while in this country. But if you agree it is worth while exploring the question whether sugar-beet is or is not worth while in this country, then we cannot do any better than that.
I should add, in order to complete the picture, that on a 5,000-acre factory—when I say a 5,000-acre factory, I mean a factory that is dealing with the produce of 5,000 acres or about 50,000 or 60,000 tons of beet annually — for the whole ten years' period, our subsidy is £15,000 a year more than the subsidy given in England. It is less than the subsidy given in England for the first three years. It is more for the other years. Having regard to the want of security, having regard to the real big doubt in the situation — that is to say, whether the Irish farmers have the organisation and will have the tillage tradition to grow this big acreage within a limited area — and to the cost of production, I ask the Dáil to say that we cannot get any nearer to the English terms, and I am personally satisfied that we have done really well in that regard.
Now, as to costings, I think Deputy Johnson suggested a committee, mainly for going into costings. We could get no reliable costings. We could not do business on that line with these firms. They were not thinking of costings. That is not what they were thinking of. They could, I daresay, for themselves or for us, find out the prices of coal, chemicals, oils, coke, and things of that kind. What they were thinking of was —"is this a country where we can invest £250,000, and is this a country where we can get the farmers to grow beets." That is what we had to pay for. We realised that we were pushing an open door in proving that coal and transit can be got at such a price here. We were at cross purposes. We had to shift our ground. We had to face the fact that the laws of supply and demand operate in England, and without any of these considerations intervening or affecting them, we had to realise that we could not expect to get, in our experimental stage, what England has got in her second stage.
We had, therefore, to see how near we could come to it, and there was the difference. For the first three years we are doing better than England. For the whole period, on the assumption of a 5,000-acre factory, and it is a fairly substantial assumption, as I think any farmer will agree — a 5,000-acre factory for the ten years' period will be £15,000 a year. The Dáil can make up their minds on that question without a Committee. Committee or no Committee, you are not going to get down to the English terms in the first year, and you could not expect it. Really what the Dáil is to ask itself is this: "Is it worth while to postpone the starting of this factory three or four years for the sake of whatever slice we can knock off that £15,000 a year?" That is the question. I personally do not believe it is. I have no doubt on the subject. I think that in a matter like this that £15,000 is a small sum of money, with the possibilities this factory has one way or another.
Deputy Heffernan has not been able to make up his mind on this question. Well, I am afraid we cannot make it up for him. We cannot give him any more help to make up his mind. We really could not. I tell the Deputies in the Farmers' Benches, and I tell the Deputies in any other part of the House, that I have no doubt myself the Irish farmer will grow this beet at 54/- a ton. I do not believe that the Irish farmer will scoff at a direct profit of £5 or £6 an acre and an indirect profit of £10 to £15 an acre. Speaking for a large number of farmers, and for a Party that represents a large number of the farmers of this country, I say there is not a parish in Ireland where the farmers would not be delighted with a direct profit of £5 or £6 per acre and an indirect profit of £10 or £15.
For three years?
Mr. HOGAN
The Deputy must know that that has nothing to do with the point I am making. Surely I must not point out the position at the end of the three years' period. Surely it must be obvious to any business man what the position will be as between the farmers and the factory owners at the end of three years. We cannot do business with any people on the lines that people are children and that they must be taken by the hand, and that we must have guarantees up to the last day, when there are other guarantees present which any business man can recognise at once, and which any business man will see are present in this scheme at the end of the three years. I want to say this definitely, that the farmers of this country will be very glad of a direct profit of £5 an acre and an indirect profit of between £10 and £15 per acre. The majority of the farmers who are good farmers will be satisfied with that. It is the minority point of view that has been put forward in this debate — the view of the minority of poor farmers, whom we have in this country as in every country. The majority of the farmers will be delighted with that profit, and will be willing to work hard for it. It will not be necessary to set up a Committee to tell farmers what 54/- a ton, with nine tons of beet to the acre, means to them.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the profits that he mentions will go out to the public. He says that the farmers will have a direct profit of £5 an acre and an indirect profit of £9 an acre. The farmers may have that for a limited number of years, but the teaching is that farmers will be lucky if the beet crop pays for itself after that. I would assure the Minister that I was not putting forward the views of any section of farmers — bad farmers or other farmers. I was speaking, as far as I was capable, for all the farmers I am supposed to represent.
Mr. HOGAN
I have given the figures already to show just what is made from an acre of sugar beets at a price of 54s. per ton and at certain costings. I explained to the House later how the farmer could count on a profit directly of £5 or £6 per statute acre at 54s. a ton and an indirect profit which brought that up to £10 or £15. If any Deputy here on the Farmers' Benches, or any other benches, says that the farmers of the country will not be glad to take that, I say they are wrong. I say we will get plenty of farmers—good farmers — who will be very glad to work hard for that profit. Further, there is no necessity, as Deputy Gorey suggested, to set up a committee in order to explain to the farmers just exactly what the meaning of fifty-four shillings per ton for nine tons or eight tons or seven tons or ten tons amounts to. They know that themselves. The farmers — we are depending on the efficient farmers, are willing to work hard for a living—know that themselves. We need not tell them. If there was any necessity to give them further information on this sugar beet project, we have already taken steps to supply that information. We arranged in every county to subsidise up to 500 acres of beet this year. In spite of the fact that this was one of the worst Springs that have come for twenty years, the 470 acres sown is doing really well and is proving a better crop, on the whole, than mangolds. So far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, they are extremely satisfied with the progress made in regard to that crop. You will have four or five or six or seven farmers in every county who will have grown this crop this year and who will know exactly what the difficulties are. They will have direct knowledge of it. These are what Deputy Heffernan referred to as the "pet farmers." I do not know what the Deputy wants. This matter was arranged by the County Committees of Agriculture. We did not go around with a microscope searching out the three or four worst farmers in every parish to grow sugar-beet. We looked out for the farmers who were working intelligently and doing well. They were not hard to find. We got twenty of them. I do not know what the Deputy means by describing them as "pet farmers," if he does not want us to search for the utterly bad farmers in each parish and get them to grow sugar-beet. There is no hope in this matter for the bad farmer. I advise any farmer in Ireland who does not do good tillage not to attempt sugar-beet.
There is nothing in this industry except for the efficient, first-class farmer. I believe we will be able to get at that price the requisite number of efficient farmers to grow the beets. I have no doubt about that, and I am willing to test it anywhere in Ireland. If, on the other hand, we do not get these farmers, the experiment will have concluded, and it will have been proved definitely that this country is not suitable for sugar beet. We can discuss the reasons afterwards. I am asked the proper question:— Could this money be better spent? That question has been often asked. It has been asked in this debate by Deputies Johnson, Heffernan, Baxter and Gorey. It has been asked in connection with other schemes, too. I will not refer to the moneys that have been spent yearly or for the last ten years. They amount to a big sum. We have already debated the question of helping the farmer by tariffs, and I think most Deputies agree with the view which we have taken on that matter. We have examined that question carefully, and I have stated here that we can, in effect, do little directly for the farmer in the future except to give him good government, low taxation and education. I want to protest against the suggestion that, because I have arranged with the Minister for Finance for £150,000 or £160,000 or £170,000 a year, for ten years, that I, as Minister for Lands and Agriculture, have mortgaged my whole future to the Minister for Finance, and that this proposal is in substitution for any other possible proposals for the relief of agriculture. That is not my view, and I do not think it is the point of view of the Minister for Finance. This proposal must stand on its own legs, apart from the question of whether we are or are not going to do anything for agriculture. It should be examined on the merits, and I am prepared to defend it on the merits. A lot better could be done by the Irish farmer than what is done, without the expenditure of much money. As I have said before, this is only the experimental stage. I indicated that you would have a second stage where probably there would be five or six factories, and then you might have a third stage where there will be twenty or thirty factories.
Deputy Heffernan quoted certain figures with which I agree. He said that the average farmer with a twenty or thirty-acre holding had an acre of roots. That is a bit low. Possibly he might have an acre and a half. If that Irish farmer would only agree to have three acres instead of one and a half acres, if he would only increase his turnips and mangolds and other green crops by one and a half acres, he would be doing more than we could ever hope to do for twenty years in the sugar-beet industry. There is no doubt at all about that. Deputies can calculate it for themselves, and they can realise the value per acre. You can calculate what stock one and a half acres of crops would feed, without imposing very much extra expenditure on the farmer and within his existing economy. My proposal in regard to increased tillage was mainly to have the present average of 4 acres per holding extended to 6 or 7 acres. My proposal was not to till half the country and to do nothing else but tillage; it was to increase the present average to 6, 7 and possibly 8 acres. That was my humble proposal.
Try the farmers with a subsidy.
Mr. HOGAN
I am glad the Deputy interrupted with that remark. If the farmers would only do what I suggest they would be doing more than we are ever likely to do with sugar beet for the next twenty years. Now, Deputy Johnson refers to a subsidy for the farmers. How much of a subsidy? Would it be £5 or £6 an acre? To suggest a subsidy for tillage is a very common, simple thing that anyone can understand. In this country at the moment we have about two million acres of corn. If that were increased by 10 per cent — 200,000 acres, and it is a small increase — consider the advantage it would be. I am asking the farmers to increase their average tillage from four acres to six acres, or about 50 per cent. That would apply to the small farmers. The increase will not make any difference whatever in the matter of his economy. I hope the House will realise that. If you increase the tillage from four to six acres, or 50 per cent., the result cannot be over-estimated. That is a very important fact. You have to get the figures in true perspective in order to understand what they mean. That ambition could be realised by any farmer without any great addition in expenditure. People talk about an increase in tillage as meaning a great change in the whole economy of the farmer.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
Mr. HOGAN
You could hardly blame him for advocating it when he is informed that you could get £60 to £70 out of an acre of potatoes. Deputy Gorey has explained that already.
Deputy Gorey told him nothing of the sort.
Mr. HOGAN
If you increase your oat crop by, say, 10 per cent.—200,000 acres — it will cost £1,000,000 a year in direct subsidy. Will the farmers do it for £5 an acre? There is no possibility on these lines. This is, of course, one of the main justifications for the sugar-beet scheme. You cannot increase tillage to any real extent by a direct subsidy without paying a price which will be out of all proportion to the results. If you increase your corn acreage by 10 per cent., it costs you £1,000,000 a year, and we are borrowing £150,000. Just a moment's examination will show any farmer that you cannot do business economically on the lines of giving a direct subsidy for tillage.
These particular proposals should not be compared with other proposals that may be originated. The Department of Agriculture, with the co-operation of the organised farmers, did a tremendous amount in the way of developing the seed potato trade in this country. I hope we will do the same in other directions. I am only anxious that organised farmers should put up a scheme that would help us somewhat; we are working in that direction ourselves. I am absolutely surprised when a Deputy like Deputy Heffernan, alleged to be speaking for the Farmers' Party, comes to the Dáil and tells us he has waited until this hour of his life to get information in regard to sugar-beet. I should have thought that any live farmers' organisation would have been considering the possibilities of the sugar-beet industry for years. I would have expected that instead of our having to find the information and give it to them, we would be working in cooperation, and we would be able to get a considerable amount of useful information from them which they would obtain in other countries. I expected they would have been able to give us some advice in regard to conditions here. But no.
They come at this hour of the day, and we are told, "You have no information about prices; we have nothing to guide us about this scheme, and we have to adjourn consideration of this scheme until Deputy Heffernan makes up his mind, and until he gets the necessary information." We cannot do it. You cannot compare this scheme with any other scheme. The fact that we are going to subsidise it ought not, and does not, mean that we are not open to examine any other proposals in connection with the agricultural industry. This scheme may fail. If it does, I am satisfied from one point of view. We have proved something. We have reduced all the irrelevant considerations which might tend to make this scheme a failure. We have secured a first-class man. We have given him a subsidy which may cover all possible contingencies. If the proposition fails, it will have failed for reasons which are connected with the merits of the case. We will have proved something; that there is nothing to look for any more for this country in the beet industry, which has great possibilities in other countries. On the other hand, if it succeeds, we have laid the foundations of an industry which may result in having fifteen to twenty factories, employing hundreds of men all over the country and bringing into cultivation anything from 200,000 to 400,000 acres of land.
Is not my motion preliminary to the consideration of the next Stage?
I take that as an amendment to the Minister's proposal.
Before this motion is taken I would like to know if there is going to be an adjournment for tea?
There is.
We want to get this question of procedure settled first. This is a definite motion, is it not?
I suppose we had better take the amendment, if it is in order, after the tea adjournment.
It is not an amendment; it is a motion.
It is a motion.
Notice has been given of this motion.
Is it in order to move to take the Committee Stage without notice?
Let the Deputy move his motion after tea.
I have given notice.
We will discuss the matter after the adjournment.
in the Chair.
Standing Order 80 states: "A Bill which has passed its Second Reading shall by motion, made without notice or debate, be referred to the Dáil sitting in Committee or to a Special Committee for detailed consideration." There is a motion here on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Figgis. As definite notice has been given of that motion, we will take it first. It will be open to Deputy Figgis to explain his reasons to the Dáil for referring this Bill to a Special Committee rather than to a Committee of the Dáil. Debate is rather an unusual course on an occasion of this kind.
I did not quite get that last sentence, but I hope as I have never hitherto succeeded in transgressing order or the ruling of the Chair that I will not do so on this occasion. I do not propose to take up a great deal of time moving the motion that stands in my name. I would like to say that I voted for the Bill, and I would always have voted for a Bill of this kind for the establishment of a beet sugar industry in Ireland. In speaking on this matter, I indicated the sense in which I did so. I said that I accepted the fact that the principle of the Bill was no more than the principle of starting a sugar-beet industry, and that we were still within power as we are obviously now within power, whatever is done with the Bill, whether my motion or any other motion be adopted, to make such amendments or revisions in Committee as in the judgment of the Dáil it might seem to require. I repeat what I said, that the establishment of a sugar-beet industry in Ireland is a sound proposition. I have thought over this matter for a long time, and I am perfectly convinced that it is a proposal that should be started, and that this country should have an opportunity of determining whether such an industry could or could not be made economically and financially successful in Ireland. I also indicated last Friday that I am prepared to accept the fact that a Committee and an inter-departmental Committee set up by the Government have made certain inquiries into the matter, and have had certain proposals before them.
I suggest that the information before that Inter-Departmental Committee might, with advantage, be accessible to a committee of this Dáil, not all of that information, but such information as the committee might think well to ask for. Deputy Egan, in referring to this motion of mine, confused it by speaking of it as though it were a reference to some Commission, and he spoke about the delay that would occur by any such reference. I am not asking that the question of a beet sugar industry should be gone into, or that it should lie within the scope of the committee that I am now proposing. I stated I was prepared to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, and that I was satisfied a beet sugar industry ought to be established, under the only possible conditions under which it could be established — by some form of Government assistance.
I should like to indicate to the Dáil now that there need be no delay whatever in the matter. Supposing the ordinary procedure of the Dáil were to be adopted, and the Bill were to be committed to the whole Dáil sitting in Committee, what would happen? The Committee Stage would be ordered for next Tuesday. It might not be taken next Tuesday, as there is a good deal of other business to intervene between now and then. If the Bill were not taken next Tuesday, it could not be taken again until the following Friday. In other words, it would probably be at least a fortnight from to-day before the Dáil, sitting in Committee, could report to the whole Dáil.
I feel that I have suggested rather too early a date in mentioning June 25th, but I am willing to amend that if this suggestion of mine wins its way. If that date were changed to this day fortnight, the special Committee would then have an opportunity of investigating the matter, and of suggesting such amendments and revisions of the Bill as it might think wise and necessary. The Special Committee would be able to report back to to the Dáil no later than the Dáil would be able to report back to itself. There would be no delay, and there is no intention of delay on my part. I am perfectly fair and sincere about the matter. I have no desire whatever that there should be any delay. I think it is a matter that has been delayed long enough, and that we ought to hasten the proposal, but I suggest that there are other methods, than that of the whole Dáil sitting in Committee, of getting the information that it requires to have.
There were two proposals that I suggested last Friday that ought to be adopted in a Bill of this kind which I would like to see some such committee as that consider with the documents before it. The Dáil is not competent to consider them, not having these documents before it. The first is that the Government contribution of money should carry representation on the board, and, secondly, that the Government contribution of money should carry its fair share of the profits of the industry which that financial contribution helps to establish. I ask the Dáil to consider that matter. The Minister for Finance to-day said that the Government should not put up any part of the capital. I asked him if M. Lippens, who is endeavouring to get capital in Ireland to-day, should fail in that, and were unable to put up the capital, whether the Government would then consider itself under some obligation to contribute the capital. He very fairly did not desire to go into what was, after all, a hypothetical matter.
The point I would like to put before the Dáil now is, that the Government is putting up the capital, in effect. We might get very easily side-tracked by the use of the word "subsidy." In the title of the Bill I had wondered what exactly the Irish for "subsidy" might happen to be. When I looked for the title, I noticed that the translator calls it "Congnamh Airgid." That is a fair definition of the word "subsidy"— a help of money. It does not very much matter whether that monetary assistance be given in one form or another. The essential fact remains that, without monetary assistance from the Government, this industry cannot be established. What is the nature of that monetary assistance? M. Lippens, we are informed, would have to put up £200,000. Taking that sum of money at 6 per cent. compound interest, at the end of the four-year period it would amount to £252,495. I endeavoured to elicit to-day what moneys exactly would be given in the form of payment for labour in the meantime. That was not forthcoming. It could not, in the circumstances, be forthcoming, and naturally I could not press for it, but if I say that M. Lippens at the end of the four-year period will certainly not have put forward more than £300,000, I am putting the case very fairly, and I do not think that my figures can be questioned.
It is making no excessive claim to say that within that four-year period the Government will have put up £441,000. That means to say, that in the four-year period the Government is giving £441,000 with a view to making this proposition a business success, and that M. Lippens will only have put up £300,000 at the outside. And yet, while M. Lippens puts up only three-quarters of what the Irish Government puts up, he will take all the profits and he will take all the representation. Palpably, I suggest, that is a proposal that is exceedingly unfair to the Free State. Taking the ten-year period you get a more striking figure.
I do not want interruption that may lengthen the debate rather than shorten it, but it seems to me that what the Deputy is saying has nothing to do with the motion.
That is the Minister's construction, but the Minister will see it has a great deal of reference to the amendment if he will only have patience. Let me briefly say that M. Lippens' contribution in money for the ten years' period will not exceed £500,000, whereas the Saorstát contribution in that period will be £2,000,000. I am suggesting that in view of these figures a change ought to be made in the very structure of the Bill on the basis of the principle that we have just accepted, giving the Government of the Saorstát a definite representation on the Board in the proportion of its contribution to the whole capital and that the contribution of the Saorstát should also carry its fair share of the profit. I suggest it is an undesirable proposition to put before this Dáil that we should keep the Committee Stage of this Bill before us in the Dáil.
Now I come to the point that the Minister for Finance touched upon: that we should be asked in Committee of the whole Dáil to consider a business matter of this kind. I contend that deputies, if they feel that Government representation on that Board is required, and Government participation in the profits of the enterprise is required having regard to the fact that it is by the overwhelming contribution of the Government that the proposition is going to be made sound, if it is going to be made sound, cannot do these things without having access to the proposals put before the Government and certain other figures and calculations that are available. We have devised in our Standing Orders for technical matters where technical information is necessary for the drafting of amendments, the procedure of a special committee, which may call for certain documents and certain figures and for special technical information to be put before it for its own special study so that it may then be able to make such changes and amendments in the Bill as that information will enable it to do but which could not be done without that information.
I am not going now to touch upon the other various contentious matters raised in the course of the debate. Some of them have direct bearing on the proposal that I now lay before the Dáil. For example, the Bill says nothing whatever about M. Lippens. In the structure of the Bill as it stands, it might be Skoda or Van Rossum. Deputy Magennis has put certain figures before the Dáil that are very interesting indeed. If I correctly followed him, I understood him to mean that within the four corners of the Bill and on terms more satisfactory to the State, some other firm than the firm mentioned by the Minister for Finance could carry out the proposals that we are now considering. In the public Press statements have been made with regard to a third firm. I know nothing at all about these firms, but I do suggest that being committed to the principle of the establishment of a beet sugar industry in Ireland, it is the business of this Dáil to take all steps that are necessary to get within that Bill the very best possible terms that we can get. The Minister for Finance stated to-day he believes that the proposal for which he stands sponsor in this Bill, give these best terms and conditions. It may well be so. I do not question that. But I do say that the proposition would be very much stronger if the Dáil, in special committee, were to have that demonstrated to it by the production of documents, and by all the consideration of these various calculations which we cannot get in a demonstration here in the full Dáil. In any case, I think that a matter of this kind, particularly a technical matter, involving very great principles ought, in any circumstances, to be referred to a special committee rather than to a committee of the whole Dáil. I think that would be true, in any case, having regard to the very contentious matters raised as to whether we cannot within the four corners of the Bill, by slight amendments and revisions somewhere, get terms more satisfactory for the Saorstát than the terms we now have got, and I urge that the right course for the Dáil to adopt would be to commit this Bill to a special committee, to empower that special committee to make examination of such documents as it requires, and to interview such persons as it thinks necessary. If it thought the terms within the Bill could not be improved the committee could report that to the Dáil on the authority of its investigation. If it thought the terms could be improved, or were sure they could be improved after a thorough investigation, and improvements were incorporated in the Bill, and if the Bill came back in that form to the Dáil, we would be in a very much stronger position than we are now. I am not pressing these matters in any opposition to the Bill. I know nothing about the various contentions that have arisen concerning it, I only know this: I have, for a long time, been in favour of starting a beet sugar industry in Ireland. Furthermore, I do not do it with any desire for delay, I suggest the course I am now adopting will enable the Dáil to proceed, at least, as rapidly and, probably, more rapidly than it could do if it adopted the procedure of committing the Bill to a committee of the whole Dáil. I therefore move the motion standing in my name:—
That the Beet Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, 1925, be referred to a Special Committee, consisting of nine Deputies to be nominated by the Committee of Selection; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; that the quorum of the Committee be five, and that the Committee report back not later than June 25th.
I want to second this with a certain reservation that may arise in the course of the discussion. I am not sure, for instance, that we should incorporate the phrase, "That the Committee should have power to send for persons, papers and records." My conception of the reference of this to a Special Committee is to allow the Committee Stage to be discussed with just a little more freedom and a little less formality than is necessary in a Committee of the Whole House, and that it would enable the Minister in charge of the Bill, with the assistance of his technical advisers, to put facts and figures before that Committee in support of it that has not been possible, so far, and I am afraid will not be possible, and certainly is not practical in the Committee of the Whole House. I feel in regard to the figures adduced, and I admit it frankly, that many of them, in the latter stages of the Second Reading debate, have been helpful, but I feel that most of them have been based upon propagandist literature or taken out of propagandist literature, and while they may be perfectly sound and perfectly reliable one knows that the tendency of the promoters of schemes, people who desire to sell things and push forward as advocates of any particular proposition, usually is to supply only those figures that support their case. They exaggerate the figures on the one hand and forget to speak kindly on the other side. Now I think we ought to have presented to us figures based upon non-propagandist statistics, but going to support first the case for a subsidy to this firm. We have passed the Second Reading agreeing to the principle of subsidy to be paid by the Government. But I would urge on the Minister that it is very desirable to have available for examination figures, for instance, to support the case made by Deputy Egan. I think very much the most important figures presented to the Dáil in this discussion were those as to the indirect effects of beet cultivation upon agricultural production, showing the aftereffects of the cultivation of beet upon the succeeding crops. Those figures, for instance, if they could be substantiated by non-partisan records, would be of the utmost possible importance. Then I think it would be much more satisfactory to discuss the merits of the particular method of subsidy in Committee, where it would be easy to arrive at a scheme of subsidy which would meet the requirements of the promoters, and would yet safeguard the interests of the State to a much greater extent. I have in mind, for instance, the fact, to which I called attention on Second Reading, of the great increase in the cane sugar plantations during the war, and the recuperation, shall I say, of the beet sugar industry in Europe.
When these two sources of supply are added together we may find, for instance, a glut in the sugar market. We know, and I think it is probably true of Monsieur Lippens particularly, in view of the other fact, that sugar-beet factory machinery requires large capital, and a fact that dominates all considerations in this matter is that both cane sugar and beet sugar production is, to a large extent, controlled by big financiers. I think it is very necessary to bear in mind the possibility that following the example of other industries the financiers of the sugar industry will come together, and there will be checks upon the marketing, checks upon the supplies; there will be an artificial raising of prices, and Monsieur Lippens, even if this industrial organisation in Ireland is a free one, will be bound up with that international combination. I would like it to be possible that we should encourage the growth and the production of sugar in this country for one very important reason, that is to supply our own needs, and not for an export trade. But if we are to be dominated on the financial side by companies which may have international associations, and are not thinking of Irish conditions or Irish prices, we may not really get much advantage on the consumers' side, apart from the production. I think that it may well be considered wise, after a discussion in Committee, that we should maintain some kind of control, and possibly satisfy one of the requirements of the financial —that is, the investing—public, to give them a greater security than is contained in the risky proposition that is put before us, and because it is risky, demanding a rather higher subsidy than would otherwise be required. We might even find it cheaper to guarantee a fair rate of interest on the capital invested, and remove the element of risk, which the Minister for Lands and Agriculture stressed, dependent upon the fact that the promoters of the scheme on the financial side are not so well acquainted with Ireland, are, therefore, a little more chary of investing their money, and consequently require a greater inducement. I suggest that that greater risk element could, perhaps, be met by a guarantee of interest upon capital invested, and perhaps a lower rate of subsidy might be required because of the smaller risk. There are matters of that kind that I think could be much more satisfactorily considered in a Special Committee than in a discussion across the floor of the House, and with this main point in view I second the motion, and I hope that the Minister will accede to it.
I add my views to Deputy Figgis, that there need not, and would not, be any delay caused by this procedure, because, if we cannot have the discussion over the table, we shall have a longer discussion, I am afraid, in Committee, across the House. It probably will be exciting, and will start more hares than are necessary, and it will cause longer discussion and greater delay.
You might have both the other way.
I think it is less likely.
There is a danger.
It is one of the risks but I think it much less likely.
rose.
There can be no debate on this motion.
Am I not entitled to speak on this motion?
It is not in order to debate this motion.
Deputy Johnson has already spoken on this.
He has seconded the motion. The motion must be proposed and seconded and put without debate, but the Minister has a right to reply.
I do not know of any Standing Order to that effect. I never heard of a motion, proposed and seconded, which could not be debated.
It is stated definitely in Standing Order 80: "A Bill which has passed its Second Reading shall, by motion made without notice or debate——" Notice has been given of this motion, but that does not change the Standing Orders at the same time.
I do not think I can accept the motion. I do not want to go into all the matters Deputy Figgis raised. It would be quite irrelevant. All these things can be quite well discussed in the Committee Stage. That is also my reply to Deputy Johnson. I think it can be adequately discussed in Committee, and that if we had a Special Committee we would have the whole thing over again in the House. It would delay the passage of the Bill, and would involve this House continuing to sit a good deal longer than it is hoped we will have to sit in order to get through the business. We are now short of time. If we wish the work of the factory to be gone on with for the year 1926, there is very little time to be lost. There is no mystery about this. Any figures we have can be given, and we will elucidate nothing in a Special Committee. Those particular points Deputy Johnson and Deputy Figgis mentioned are the sort of things that should be discussed in the whole House, because they are fundamental to the Bill. They are not points of detail at all. They are big matters which should be discussed here, and I can see no argument in favour of the Special Committee.
|
Pádraig Baxter.Seán Buitléir.Seán de Faoite.Darrell Figgis.Connor Hogan.Tomás Mac Eoin.Ailfrid O Broin. |
Tomás O Conaill.Aodh O Cúlacháin.Liam O Daimhín.Mícheál O Dubhghaill.Seán O Duinnín.Donnchadh O Guaire.Mícheál O hIfearnáin. |
|
Earnán de Blaghd.Seoirse de Bhulbh.Séamus de Búrca.Louis J. D'Alton.Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.Patrick J. Egan.Thomas Hennessy.Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.Liam Mac Cosgair.Pádraig Mac Fadáin.Patrick McGilligan.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Liam Mac Sioghaird.Liam Mag Aonghusa. |
Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.John T. Nolan.Michael K. Noonan.Mícheál O hAonghusa.Máirtín O Conalláin.Eoghan O DochartaighSéamus O Dóláin.Aindriú O Láimhín.Fionán O Loingsigh.Séamus O MurchadhaPádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).Seán O Súilleabháin.Caoimhghín O hUigín.Seán Príomhdhail.Patrick W. Shaw. |