Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 13

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - BEET SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL—MONEY RESOLUTION.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go bhfuil sé oiriúnach a údaru go n-íocfar amach as airgead a sholathróidh an tOireachtas agus maidir le siúicre a déanfar i Saorstát Eireann, laistigh den tréimhse dheich mblian dar tosach an 1adh lá de Dheire Fomhair, 1926, o bhiatas siúicre a saothruíodh i Saorstát Eireann, congnamh airgid in aghaidh gach céad meáchaint siúicre ar rátáí nach mó ná na iad so a leanas:—

	MEID AN CHONGNAIMH AIRGID IN AGHAIDH AN CHEAD MEACHAINT
GRAD POLARUITHE AN TSIUICRE.	Siúicre a dineadh Iadh Deire Fomhair, 1926, no dá éis, agus roimh Iadh Deire Fomhair, 1929	Siúicre a dineadh Iadh Deire Fomhair, 1929, no dá éis, agus roimh Iadh Deire Fomhair, 1934	Siúicre a dineadh Iadh Deire Fomhair, 1934, no dá éis, agus roimh Iadh Deire Fomhair 1936
	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
Os cionn 98 ngrád	24	6.	22	6	22	0
Os cionn 97 gan bheith os cionn 98	22	6.5	20	8.4	20	2.9
,,,, 96 ,, ,, ,, ,, 97	21	11.4	20	1.9	19	8.5
,,,, 95 ,, ,, ,, ,, 96	21	4.4	19	7.4	19	2.2
,,,, 94 ,, ,, ,, ,, 95	20	9.3	19	1.0	18	7.9
,,,, 93 ,, ,, ,, ,, 94	20	2.3	18	6.5	18	1.5
,,,, 92 ,, ,, ,, ,, 93	19	7.2	18	0	17	7.2
,,,, 91 ,, ,, ,, ,, 92	19	0.1	17	5.5	17	0.9
,,,, 90 ,, ,, ,, ,, 91	18	5.1	16	11.0	16	6.5
90 grád no níos lú	nil.	nil.	nil.

Acht—

(1) más rud é, le linn an siúicre bheith á dhéanamh, go mbeidh diúité custum inéilithe ar iomportáil siúicre den ghrád chéanna pólaruithe déanfar méid an diúite sin ar chéad meáchaint do bhaint as an gcongnamh airgid a luaidhtear sa táible sin roimhe seo; agus

(2) má bhíonn diúité máil inéilithe ar an siúicre agus go n-íocfar é, déanfar méid an diúité sin ar chéad meáchaint do chur leis an gcongnamh airgid a luaidhtear sa táible sin roimhe seo.

That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas in respect of sugar manufactured in Saorstát Eireann within the period of ten years beginning on the 1st day of October, 1926, from sugar beet grown in Saorstát Eireann, of a subsidy in respect of every hundredweight of sugar at rates not exceeding the following:—

		AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY ON ONE HUNDREDWEIGHT.
DEGREE OF POLARISATION OF SUGAR.	Sugar manufactured on or after 1st October, 1926, and before 1st October, 1929	Sugar manufactured on or after 1st October, 1929, and before 1st October, 1934	Sugar manufactured on or after 1st October, 1934, and before 1st October, 1936
	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
Exceeding 98 degrees	24	6	22	6	22	0
Exceeding 97 and not exceeding 98	22	6.5	20	8.4	20	2.9
,, 96 ,, ,, ,, 97	21	11.4	20	1.9	19	8.5
,, 95 ,, ,, ,, 96	21	4.4	19	7.4	19	2.2
,, 94 ,, ,, ,, 95	20	9.3	19	1.0	18	7.9
,, 93 ,, ,, ,, 94	20	2.3	18	6.5	18	1.5
,, 92 ,, ,, ,, 93	19	7.2	18	0	17	7.2
,, 91 ,, ,, ,, 92	19	0.1	17	5.5	17	0.9
,, 90 ,, ,, ,, 91	18	5.1	16	11.0	16	6.5
90 degrees or less	nil.	nil.	nil.

Provided that

(1) if at the time of manufacture of the sugar a customs duty is chargeable on the importation of sugar of the same degree of polarisation, the subsidy as specified in the foregoing table shall be reduced by the amount of such duty on one hundredweight; and

(2) whenever an excise duty is chargeable and is paid on the sugar, the subsidy as specified in the foregoing table shall be increased by the amount of such duty on one hundredweight.

The motion sets out the terms and the rates at which the subsidy, under the Sugar Beet Bill, are to be paid. In the Bill itself the table was not complete There was only the top figures given. The subsequent figures given in the various columns form the usual table. You see the same table in the various Customs' Bills. We have completed the statement of the provisions by adding No. 2 of the proviso. It is understood, of course, that the amount of subsidy to be paid under the Bill shall always be abated by the amount of any Customs duty chargeable on sugar. There must be a countervailing provision, of course, that if at any time an excise duty is charged on sugar the amount of the subsidy shall be increased by the amount of the excise duty which has been charged and paid. The figures given in the various columns are the total net figures of the advantage which the manufacturer of sugar here will have our competitors It is the net figure for subsidy. I have already said, in the course of the discussion on the Bill, all that is to be said in regard to this table.

Mr. JOHNSON

I ask your ruling, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, on a point which, I think, is clear enough, but to make assurance doubly sure I am raising the matter now. The adoption of this motion, I take it, will not preclude the consideration, on the Committee Stage, of amendments unless those amendments quite definitely throw a greater charge upon the Treasury than the resolution allows.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think Deputy Johnson's view of the matter is correct, that it will be competent to move for a reduction of the charge.

Mr. JOHNSON

Or for an alteration in the method of apportioning the amount which is estimated to be involved in this.

Mr. BLYTHE

It does not seem to me, as regards the amendments which Deputy Johnson has down, that any of them would be out of order.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

So long as it is not proposed to increase the charge, the amendments would be in order.

Mr. JOHNSON

The point is that one of my amendments aims at giving the possibility of an alternative method of payment of an amount which is not estimated to be in excess of these amounts here, but then these amounts do not indicate any gross sum, and, therefore, I want your ruling as to whether the motion in my name, amendment No. 2, providing for payment out of the Treasury of certain sums, not in the manner laid down in the resolution, would be in order.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I take it that the amendment would be in order.

Mr. GOREY

There are some points to which I desire to call attention, and I think I had better do so on this resolution rather than on the Committee Stage of the Bill. This motion deals with the subsidies that are to be paid each year under this Bill. When we read some of the letters that appear in the newspapers with regard to the tonnage expected to the acre, one begins to wonder what is the necessity for subsidies at all. I have here before me a letter which appeared in a recent issue of The Irish Times. The writer's name is given as Mr. Matthew Purcell, and he is described as the Secretary and Organiser of Co. Tipperary and Adjoining Counties Sugar Beet Growers' Association. His letter reads:—

"With regard to recent some what pessimistic statements in the Dáil and elsewhere as to the possibility of any Irish agricultural district being able to provide the necessary minimum area of 5,000 statute acres of sugar beet to justify the erection of a sugar-beet factory in the Saorstát, I am in a position to point out that, although my organising committee has been only one month in existence and has not yet completed its prospecting tour, we have already obtained promises from the farmers whose parochial meetings we have attended, of an area to be laid with sugar-beet next April far greater than the area stipulated. By the time this committee completes its journeyings through Tipperary and surroundings, where numerous experimental plots are down, we anticipate guarantees for 10,000 statute acres under sugar-beet next spring. The experiments already carried out in County Tipperary show a higher tonnage and a greater sugar content than the average for any other district, home or foreign, that we know of, and on the data in possession of my committee a return of £42 per statute acre, or £62 per Irish acre, is possible. And coming down to what we would regard as the minimum tonnage of ten to the statute acre, the return would be £27 or £42 to the Irish acre—not bad money either by any means. When Deputy Gorey speaks of only 7½ to 8 tons of sugar beet to the acre he must be thinking of some very wretched land, perhaps Connemara."

The figures that I used in the Dáil were the figures given by Deputy Professor Magennis. I did not give any figures, but I commented on the figures quoted by Deputy Professor Magennis. I thought that the Deputy knew all about this, but evidently he does not know as much as this writer from the Co. Tipperary.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

The statement which the Deputy has just read out merely shows that 53/- per ton will leave the farmers a very good profit, but it does not affect the question of subsidy.

Mr. GOREY

I was not trying to direct the attention of the Minister for Agriculture to this at all. What I intended doing was to ask the Minister for Justice to take this up. The letter concludes:—

"Well, Borrisokane and Killea, in County Tipperary, produced round about 32 tons statute, while West Kilkenny and South Leix growers speak freely of being able to produce 20 tons statute."

Now, I say this to the Minister for Justice, that to allow documents of this kind to go around like this, evidently with some authority, would be more or less criminal, if it was not so foolish. The only explanation of it that I can see——

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

Simply as a matter of information, I would like the Deputy's opinion as to whether it is any more criminal than to say that a return of £70 or £80 to the acre could be made from potatoes.

Mr. GOREY

Very much more criminal That statement, to which the Minister has called attention, was made from information received in County Dublin that during the month of June an acre of potatoes was sold in the County Dublin for the amount I mentioned I appeal to the Minister for Agriculture if that is not so?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I thought the Deputy was arguing that the statement he read was correct, and that this subsidy was not necessary at all?

Mr. GOREY

No. I say this wild sort of statement is more detrimental to the project under discussion than anything I can imagine, because promises of this description are held out to people to induce them to try experiments which will prove the falsity of these exaggerated statements in six months, and will only succeed in damning the undertaking. The only way I can explain these things is that these people have been inhaling J.J., No. 1 Culture, recently brought out by a Minister of this House. This man may be able to defend himself on the ground that he has inhaled some of the culture spread about by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

That has nothing to do with the question before the House.

Mr. GOREY

I bow to your decision, sir. The question arises for those responsible for the Bill and those responsible for its progress whether it is wise to allow these statements to pass without contradiction or without some guidance, or whether the public is to be allowed to be fooled by documents of this description having a semi-official character about them. That is all I want to say at this stage.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to be quite on the safe side and, therefore, I beg to move as an amendment:—

To insert after the words "Saorstát Eireann," where they occur the second time the following: "All payments of such amount as may be necessary for ensuring the payment of interest at a minimum rate to be prescribed by the Minister upon the capital invested in the undertaking."

Then would follow: "Or by payment in respect of sugar manufacture." It is in fact to embody in the resolution, the terms of Amendment No. 2 which I have down for the Committee Stage. I am just a little afraid that it may be very strictly interpreted, and unless I raise the question now I may not be able to move to have the amendment embodied in the resolution.

The proposal in the Bill is to pay a subsidy to the factory owner. My proposal is to give the Minister powers to pay a subsidy in another form than that set out in the Bill, that is to say, to ensure the minimum payment of interest It was argued, on the Second Reading Stage, that the reason the particular rates of subsidy set out in the schedules were necessary, was because in the minds of the Belgian capitalists —promoters as they might be called— it was recognised that there was a greater risk in undertaking a sugar-beet factory in the Saorstát than in Great Britain, the number of factors entering into that risk, and because of the greater risk it was necessary to increase the amount of the subsidy. Now my proposal is to minimise the risk, and, inasmuch as this Bill is being promoted as a nation-building scheme, as a productive enterprise, in the interests of the community as a whole, and as an experiment, it is reasonable to say that the risk of the experiment should be shared by the community, and that it is better to make terms on a low rate of subsidy, as the Minister argued we could do, if we reduce the risk to the promoters, by guaranteeing a certain rate of interest on the necessary capital invested.

If it is a national undertaking, in the interests of the community as a whole, and is recognised to be an experiment, then the risk of the experiment should be undertaken by the country, and we can reasonably support a proposition to guarantee a reasonable rate of interest on any capital invested for this period of ten years. If we guarantee the interest on the capital invested presumably, on the Minister's argument, we can lower the rate of subsidy because the element of risk is greatly reduced.

I am sure a good many Deputies had their attention drawn to an advertisement which appeared in the newspapers, in the last few days, for capital for a new British sugar factory in Norfolk, that is in the district in which other factories have been working for some time. The capital required is £350,000, and in the prospectus the promoters tell us that by reason of the British Government's subsidy the advantage to British produced sugar over imported sugar will average for the next nine years £14 18s. 4d. per ton.

Mr. GOREY

Per ton of sugar?

Mr. JOHNSON

Yes, per ton of sugar. That is to say, British sugar is getting an advantage practically of £15 per ton. We are proposing to give £24 10s.

Mr. HOGAN

£23.

Mr. JOHNSON

£24 10s. for the first three years, reducing to as low as £22, giving an average, as the Minister reminds me, of £23. As between £23 and £15, there is a great gulf fixed, and it seems to me that the difference is rather great to meet the added risk. As we were informed on the Second Reading, that because of the additional risk involved, it was necessary to give this higher subsidy, I desire to make it possible for the Minister to reduce the subsidy by guaranteeing a definite rate of interest on the share capital over a period of ten years. I think we ought, at least, give the Minister powers and indicate, in giving him those powers, our wish that he should endeavour to make a new bargain, either with the company which has already promoted some kind of provisional arrangement, or with any other company which is prepared to take advantage of the conditions in the Bill when completed. We should give the Minister powers, with the implication of a direction, that he should get the advantage which a guaranteed interest would give in the direction of a lower rate of subsidy. The company, whose prospectus I quoted, in indicating that they have an advantage of fifteen pounds a ton over imported sugar, tell us that they are anticipating the nett profits of the first year's working at £71,000, during the next two years £107,000, or an average for the three years' working of £95,000. This on £350,000 share capital is over 27 per cent. per annum. It may, as I have said, be reasonably argued that there is greater risk in establishing a factory here, but when we read this announcement of a British factory, and when we read the announcement of the Belgian promoters, as to what they anticipate, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that they are looking for an exceptional rate of profit commensurate with what they deem to be, and what the Minister assumes to be, a reasonable plea, namely, added risk. I say it is right and proper that we should, by State action, attempt to reduce the risk so that we may get the advantage of a lower subsidy. I therefore move this amendment to the resolution so as to allow the amendment on the Order Paper to be embodied in the Bill.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

There is a point about this amendment which Deputy Johnson has not brought out, and which makes the suggestion made by him, in my opinion, impracticable. His amendment, if accepted, might possibly have the effect of putting the State under greater expense than it would have to bear under the Bill as it stands. As I gather from this amendment, he wants the State to guarantee a fixed dividend on capital. I presume that the State also have to step in and pay the difference between any loss the factory sustains and the actual cost of production. Further, it would have to add the amount necessary to pay the interest on the capital. If Deputy Johnson thinks that the subsidy paid in Ireland, as compared with that paid in England, is too high, the best method, in my opinion, of meeting that would be to move to reduce the subsidy to that level, or close to it, which prevails in England. As I see it, the substance of the amendment might have the effect of involving the State in a greater subsidy than that at present embodied in the Bill. If I am wrong in that I am open to correction, but that is how I read it, namely, that not only has the State to guarantee the actual minimum interest on capital but it will have to guarantee the company against any possible loss in the buying of beet and manufacturing it into sugar.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister for Lands and Agriculture)

Deputy Johnson quoted a figure of £15.

Mr. JOHNSON

£14 18s. 4d., which I interpreted to be round about £15.

Mr. HOGAN

It was stated on Second Reading that the entire subsidy which the British got was about 19s. 9d. The prospectus which Deputy Johnson quoted gives a figure which shows the advantage their sugar has over ours, but the Finance Bill is not through in England yet. It provides for additional colonial preference of about 2s. 4d., and, in addition, there is the subsidy for molasses. The fact is that if the present Financial Bill passes they will have a subsidy of 19s. as against our 23s. That may be too big or too small, but that is the fact. You must compare our £23 a ton on our sugar with £19 10s. in England. That is what it comes to, when you add colonial preference and the duty on molasses.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then the profits would be greater than 27 per cent.

Mr. HOGAN

That may be. Deputy Johnson read out his prospectus, but we know what prospectuses are.

Mr. JOHNSON

They are the usual maxima anticipated.

Mr. HOGAN

I know, and when I am going to start a company I will draw as rosy a picture as possible, but I have not done it yet. In order to give the Dáil a real picture, he would also have to read out the comments of the financial papers on this enterprise. I understand that all the financial papers point out that it is a highly speculative undertaking, and I understand that they have yet to get the money for it, and they have eleven years' experience of the industry.

Mr. JOHNSON

20,000 shares have been underwritten.

Mr. HOGAN

That is all right. Notwithstanding the public indifference to these magnificent inducements, I do not think that they have put up any money yet. As I have said, to get a real picture, you have to put up not only the prospectus but the comments of the financial papers on the prospectus, and these are not particularly hopeful. It would have been better if Deputy Johnson read out the balance sheets of various English sugar companies.

Mr. JOHNSON

I hoped that the Minister would give us all that information.

Mr. HOGAN

We could not get them properly, but if they were as good as that prospectus, there would be no difficulty in getting them.

Mr. GOOD

Has the Minister made any effort to get them?

Mr. HOGAN

Certainly.

Mr. GOOD

A number of them were published, and I have one of them.

Mr. HOGAN

What are they worth, from the point of view of this debate?

Mr. GOOD

The point is made that they are not available.

Mr. HOGAN

I mean they are not available in a form that you could make deductions from them.

Mr. GOOD

They are.

Mr. HOGAN

Very well. We will hear Deputy Good on that afterwards. We pay 23/-, and in England they pay 19/-. That is as good as we can do. Deputy Johnson makes the suggestion that we should have an alternative form of subsidy and guarantee the profits, and in that way write off a certain amount of risks. I agree you have to consider the risk of loss of capital and other losses on the part of the prospectors. We have to start all over again on a new basis, and to measure what the various likely prospectors would consider to be a fair measure of return for the risk they are likely to incur by reason of the fact that they have guaranteed a certain amount of interest on what was given as the difference. Our position is that we are being forced into a definite subsidy of 23/- to M. Lippens, and we are asked why should it not be 5/- or 2/6, or why should we not take a present from these companies coming in here for their right to make sugar. It would be delightful if we could. Whether we have faced this matter in the right way, whether we are competent or incompetent, we spent six months in negotiations with every firm of repute in Europe, and we could do no better than we have done. It is for the Dáil to make up its mind whether the price we are paying for the experiment is too much, or whether we could not do better in two or three years hence, until we get terms in consideration of whatever difference they think they can get to their advantage in two or three years hence. In making up their minds on that, Deputies have one piece of firm ground on which to go, and that is in England, where the ordinary law of supply and demand operates automatically for a period of years, and, of course, the same laws of supply and demand operate here with certain variations in prices, but in England the subsidy is 19/- and here it is 23/-. The difference on a 5,000 tons factory would be about £15,000 a year—that is, a factory fed by 5,000 acres of tillage, and farmers will know what difficulty there would be in getting 5,000 acres of tillage. It is for the Dáil to say whether it is worth their while to wait three or four years and try to get better terms, and to cut the subsidy down to 19/-. But the Dáil will not be able to do that, because there are elements here which are uncertain at the root, and which are certain in England, not by reason of any superiority in England, but that they have made experiments and know what they are able to do. They have demonstrated that in Norfolk farmers can grow 5,000 acres of beet, and they know fairly well what the sugar content will be. They can draw deductions from actual facts not present here, for we are only making a beginning. It is a matter of business, and you could not get down to the terms in England. I can understand a man saying there is nothing in sugar beet and we should drop it. That is understandable, but for any man who takes up the position that there is a possibility of making a success of this experiment, and that it is worth starting, to say that we should hold over this experiment for three or four years for the sake of £15,000 a year is a position that I do not quite understand.

Mr. HEWAT

I think Deputy Johnson, in moving his amendment, anticipated the heat that is likely to arise on the motion itself when it comes on. I think the discussion on the Bill and the decision of the Dáil finally to accept the proposal of the subsidy is anticipated The subsidy as laid down here will be decided by the Dáil to be a right subsidy to pay. Of course I have a general objection to the Bill, because it provides for a subsidy, and of course Deputy Johnson and the Dáil will not expect me to agree to the principle of subsidising industry, even in connection with sugar beet. I quite appreciate that the House has gone and is marching in that direction, so that my opinion is of very little weight one way or the other. Deputy Johnson puts forward the contention that the State should guarantee a fixed dividend for the capital to be raised in connection with the erection of a sugar beet factory What would be the result of that? There will be practically no incentive to work the factory on economic and business lines at all, because there will be freedom from the responsibility of paying the dividend out of profits earned. On that principle I venture to say that the production of sugar beet in that factory would be as expensive as it could be made. The alternative is, of course, for the Dáil to follow to its logical conclusions the principles they have tentatively adopted, and nationalise the whole industry I could not agree with that course, but the Dáil seems to be in the humour to follow that line.

Mr. JOHNSON

Did the Deputy oppose the Trades Facilities Act?

Mr. HEWAT

I have got tired of being opposed to things here, and I now take them lying down, generally speaking. Deputy Johnson lays it down that this factory will be exceptionally profitable. Well, if it is so I think it would be for the good of the scheme as a whole. I think the greatest trouble that will arise in connection with that factory, if it is the phenomenal success that Deputy Johnson anticipates for it, would be that the Minister for Agriculture and the Government would not be allowed to stand by the decision they had come to, that the experiment is to be limited to one factory, but that pressure would be brought to bear on them to increase the subsidy to something greater than is contemplated in this Bill. Already we have sounds in this House of district vieing with district for the erection of the factory, and the Government has been asked to influence the decision of the people who are to erect the factory as to where it should be erected. The real danger I can see is that if the experiment is a success it will not be confined within the limits of the Bill, but I think that is anticipating some of the things that must be decided by the House at a later stage. With regard to the amendment, I agree with Deputy Johnson that it is not necessary at this stage to fix the amount of the subsidy, and that it would be better to leave that over. On the other hand, I do not place any great faith in Deputy Johnson's alternative. The really substantial support I can give to this Bill is because it recognises that the erection of the sugar beet factory and its administration by private individuals is the only chance of the experiment being carried out on satisfactory economic lines. The moment the Government interferes with the profit and loss account, or the administration or working of the factory, then good-bye to all chance of the experiment being a success.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to supplement what I said earlier by a point that I had overlooked. Before coming to that, I want to point out to Deputy Hewat that the reason why this amendment has been debated on this motion is, contrary to his view, because it might be ruled out of order on the Bill itself, as it might put an additional charge on the State, and that could not be done by a private Deputy's motion. Deputy Hewat rather prides himself upon the view that if a factory of this kind is exceptionally profitable, then it is certain to lead to a very great increase in the number of factories. That may be, provided that after the first three years they continue to pay a price which will induce farmers to grow beet, and that the Minister is prepared to give a licence to other factories But the exceptional profitableness that is a possibility is only made possible by the fact that the State is going to subsidise it. The point I want to draw attention to is, that there are two classes of factories being dealt with. There is the proviso to paragraph (a), sub-section (1), which deals with sugar manufactured in the first factory established in the Saorstát, and also in respect to sugar manufactured in any other factory, that the subsidies shall not exceed those set out in the schedule. Unless an amendment enlarging the powers of the Minister is accepted, any subsequent factory that may be set up in the next ten years can only be set up on the basis of a subsidy, not on the basis of any other possible arrangement. I do not remember having heard from Deputy Hewat any violent opposition to the proposal to guarantee capital and interest on loans under the Trade Loans (Facilities) Act.

Mr. HEWAT

I do not think the Deputy heard me speak in favour of it.

Mr. JOHNSON

That may be, but the Deputy acquiesced. I do not think he voted against it; he certainly did not speak against it. The proposal in my amendment is simply to do in respect of this particular kind of factory what the Dáil has accepted and the country has approved in respect to other factories under the Trade Loans (Facilities) Act. Deputy Hewat may agree that there are other methods of assisting industries to establish themselves in addition to that of subsidy, but this Bill proposes to exclude any other method, except the method of subsidy. My amendment at least would give one other alternative: to guarantee interest on capital at rates to be fixed, and in accordance with regulations agreed upon by the Minister. If he, in considering the terms of any licence, finds he could not make terms any better than the subsidy, presumably he would agree upon the subsidy, but I want to empower him by law to make other terms of agreement and possibly—and on the argument certainly—because there is less risk and less cost to the State. If it is going to be more costly, then, of course, the Minister is going to use his discretion, and is not going to enter into these other more costly arrangements. That meets Deputy Heffernan's point. But there ought to be power given to the Minister to assist factories to come into being other than by way of subsidy on sugar.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

There is the Trade Loans (Facilities) Act.

Mr. JOHNSON

Yes, but you might say in that respect that the Trade Loans (Facilities) Act would apply here.

Mr. HOGAN

Quite.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has brought in a Bill dealing with beet sugar, and I am assuming that there was some reason for bringing in that Bill, irrespective of Ministerial action. I am following the lead by saying that in respect either of this factory or subsequent factories the Minister shall be empowered to make alternative arrangements and not be confined exclusively to the subsidy method. The amendment, of course, does not insist that the alternative method shall be adopted, but that he should have power to enter into agreements on an alternative method as well as on the method of subsidy.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think it would be undesirable to insert this amendment. We certainly would not act on it. If we were inclined to guarantee capital and interest we have ample power in the Trade Loans (Facilities) Act. There is no reason why, within the limits of that Act, capital and interest in connection with the sugar beet factory should not be guaranteed, but we do not propose to do it in that way. I do not think we could do business in that way. It would never get the industry established. I agree with the view put forward by Deputy Hewat. There is no doubt, if there was a guarantee of interest, that there would be very little incentive towards working a factory in the best way. If difficulties were encountered, there certainly would not be the incentive to overcome them. If things went swimmingly, then perhaps people would work hard for the purpose of getting the extra profit beyond the amount guaranteed to them. But, if things went ill, there would not be the incentive that we want to exist to fight against difficulties, to overcome them, to adopt any new methods that may be necessary, either to deal with the technical problems, to induce farmers to grow the crops, or anything else. We want to get this enterprise on to a really hard business basis, and we feel that the only way it can be done is by making the risk the factory owners: by making them face up to whatever difficulties there are, and, being experienced in the matter, overcome these difficulties in a way we believe other people, who are not experienced, could not overcome them. I do not want to raise any point of order, but I do think, even if Deputy Johnson's amendment were passed, unless there were a further Governor-General's Message, that we would get no additional powers.

Mr. JOHNSON

What are the terms of the Message?

Mr. BLYTHE

"On the advice of the Executive Council and for the purpose of Article 37 of the Constitution I have to recommend that in respect of sugar manufactured in Saorstát Eireann within the period beginning on the 1st day of October, 1926, from sugar-beet grown in Saorstát Eireann, a subsidy be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas in respect of every hundredweight of sugar at rates not exceeding the following:— ..." To make it effective we would have to be sure that it was not going to be invalidated in the courts afterwards by having a further Message. I really deal with the case on the merits and not on the technical point.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has raised a very important point dealing with the rights of Deputies. A motion has been put down in detail authorising the payment of certain moneys in respect of sugar beet, and it sets out in detail the terms of the Bill. We are ruled out from amending the Bill in any way in respect of this, because the terms of the resolution are detailed and precise. Any motion affecting the finance of this scheme will have to be within the limits of this resolution. We should have had that resolution in our hands at the same time as the Bill, so that we could have put forward our amendments in due time and given proper consideration to them in respect of this motion, because this motion in effect is the Bill. The method of procedure is, in fact, limiting the rights of Deputies to discuss the financial terms of the Bill. I do not know if I am right in saying that the procedure usually in regard to these motions has been to either have a maximum sum or to deal in general terms with sums involved in the legislation. In this motion we are now asked to legislate, and we are committed to legislating in a specific direction We cannot amend the Bill subsequently except within the very narrow limits of this resolution. I think that is a matter we have a right to protest against as being a limitation to freedom of discussion on a matter of very great importance.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not wish to argue much about this. It is the fact, as the Message is drawn, of either accepting or rejecting the subsidy method. Of course, it is also a question of being willing to fix the particular figures set out for subsidy at maximum level. It says "not exceeding." Anybody can move to reduce them. If a motion to reduce them were carried in the Dáil, the Government would have to decide either to drop the Bill if they thought they could not go on, or bring in some alternative or additional method of subsidy so as to compensate for the loss that that reduction would cause.

Mr. JOHNSON

We have not had due notice of that motion which, as I say, limits the rights of Deputies to discuss this very important matter. I submit that we ought not to proceed to discuss the financial side of the measure, or the measure as a whole, because, as a matter of fact, it cannot be discussed until this motion has been passed. We cannot discuss it even then with proper freedom because we are limited by the terms of the motion which are limited presumably by the terms of the Governor-General's Message. We had not notice of the form of this motion and I submit that we had a right to have notice so that we could try and amend it in such a manner, or in any manner in which we would seek to amend the Bill, on the financial side. This will rule out Deputy Heffernan's amendments or any other amendment dealing with the question of subsidy.

Mr. BLYTHE

It would not rule out Deputy Heffernan's amendments at all.

Mr. GOREY

How many amendments does it rule out?

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not see any amendments it would rule out except No. 2 by Deputy Johnson, and we have really discussed that.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

No. 2 has been decided.

Mr. HEWAT

In so far as Deputy Johnson's comments are concerned obviously the whole Bill, as originally laid down, and the discussions that took place are based on the figures given in the motion. I imagine they are so wrapped up that the Bill could not go through if the figures given in the motion were not acceptable to the Dáil.

Mr. JOHNSON

The amount of the subsidy is dependent on the price paid for the beet. I think it is very questionable whether one can discuss the price paid for the beet without discussing the subsidy and without considering the possibilities of variation or alternatives to the subsidy. I think the procedure limits the possibility of discussion in a way that it should not be limited.

Professor MAGENNIS

Has Deputy Johnson overlooked the fact that this Bill is practically authorising the Government, in the name of the legislature, to carry out a contract provisionally entered into?

Mr. JOHNSON

We know nothing about the contract. It is not in the Bill.

Professor MAGENNIS

It is perfectly true it is not in the Bill but it is in the knowledge of the House, in virtue of the debate on the Bill and with all the facts before the House the Second Reading of the Bill was carried. What was that? It was an adoption of the principle of the measure. What is the principle of the measure? You cannot separate the Bill proper from the schedule. The principle was that we approve of the promotion of a sugar-beet industry through the grant of a subsidy as set out in the schedule.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is not the principle.

Professor MAGENNIS

That is a matter for debate. I am afraid it is too late to contend now, after the principle has been adopted by the vote of the House, that it is not the principle. It is impossible to read the Bill in the light of the debate, or to understand the debate in reference to the Bill on any other basis than this: that what was presented to the House was to approve of a grant of subsidies in aid of the sugar-beet industry to the amount of 24/6 per cwt.

Mr. JOHNSON

Surely the Deputy would not say that is part of the principle of the Bill?

Professor MAGENNIS

Unless Deputy Johnson means by the principle of the Bill some abstract proposition. I think that is where we are at variance If what Deputy Johnson understands by the principle of the Bill is some abstract proposition, then, of course, he is right and I am wrong. Then the principle of the Bill as passed on the Second Reading would be that we approve of the promotion of industries by the grant of subsidies. Deputy Johnson will hardly contend seriously that that is a correct summary or a correct version, by way of history, of what we did a few days ago. We did a great deal more than endorse the doctrine that the Government may promote industry by granting a subsidy. We approved of a particular, named industry being promoted by a subsidy. Nor did we stop at that: we approved of the promotion of this named, individual industry on certain terms, and the terms were set out in the schedule.

Mr. JOHNSON

We approved of every section and sub-section on those terms.

Question put and declared carried.