Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Monday, 31 May 1926

Vol. 15 No. 23

ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE. - IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £152,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Congnamh Airgid d'íoc ar scór Siúicre Bhiatais (Uimh. 37 de 1925).

That a sum not exceeding £152,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for payment of Subsidy in respect of Beet Sugar (No. 37 of 1925).

There was no vote on account last year.

I think that this Estimate requires very little explanation, and that Deputies understand this subsidy. The subsidy is payable at the rate of 24/6 per cwt. on sugar manufactured, and it is expected that this will provide the whole subsidy with, I should say, the exception of about £30,000, which will probably need to be voted otherwise. The sugar company expect between 9,000 and 10,000 acres of beet this year. Deputies will remember that originally it was not expected that more than about 7,000 acres of beet would be grown in the first year, but after some time it became evident that a larger acreage could be obtained, and it was decided as a matter of policy that it would be bad business to discourage anybody in the counties interested from growing beet in the first year. Consequently all contracts were accepted. I need not now go into the prices to be paid to farmers; that has already been explained on the Bill. The sugar will be manufactured under the supervision of the Revenue authorities, who will certify the polarisation, and suitable arrangements will be made with the sugar company for payment, whether fortnightly or weekly.

I want to make a point which does not arise, except indirectly, on the Estimate, and that is to say that special arrangements have been made to supply seed to the growers. All sugar companies insist on the beet they take being grown only from their own seed. That is not peculiar to this country; it is common to all countries, and the Irish sugar manufacturing company are supplying the seed, through retailers and direct, to the growers. They are supplying direct to all farmers who are growing on contract. In addition, they have supplied a certain amount of seed to retailers, and that will be retailed out to people who have not signed contracts, but who, at the last moment, decided that they would grow beet. Arrangements have also been made for giving credit to growers for fertilisers. A complete mixture which will cost, roughly speaking, about £3 5s. per ton, is supplied on request to any farmer, and the price is deducted by the company from the payments to be made to the farmer, and repaid by the company to the retailer, so that the farmers are getting manures on credit. The arrangements for payments are something like this: There is a first payment of £3 10s. per acre on singling. There is another payment of the same amount in August, after inspection of the crop. Of the balance, half is paid on the 15th of the month for all beets delivered during the previous month, and the final payment must be made on or before 15th February.

It was found that the experiments, which were very extensively and very carefully made last year, were extremely useful. There were about 353 centres, and four different varieties of seed were grown in each. These centres were established in every county. The results of these experiments have been, I should say, almost invaluable to the farmers who are now growing beet for the factory. They established that of the four kinds of seed, two were far the best. That was established firmly in practically every centre. The result was that the company had the advantage of those experiments and were able to supply growers with the seed which did best. They also gave us much valuable information in connection with sugar content, yield and cultivation. These experiments are being continued. Certain points have not yet been fully investigated, points in respect of which sufficient information has not been yielded by the experiments, and in order to cover these points, in order to make the experiments complete, in order to get all the results which we think we ought to get for the purpose of giving advice to the growers, not only in regard to the varieties but in regard to cultivation, singling, sugar content, and a hundred and one other questions, there is a necessity that we should continue these experiments this year. I think it likely that we will have to continue them next year and the year after, but they will gradually be becoming less expensive. The results of these experiments will be published in pamphlet form in the course of a couple of weeks.

One instructor of the Department of Agriculture is set aside for work in connection with the sugar factory. The company itself has two instructors, and more instructors will be employed by the company if they find it necessary. The experiment, therefore, is beginning under excellent auspices. Growers have all the advantages of last year's experiments; they are not in the position of knowing nothing whatever about sugar beet, as grown in a new climate and under new conditions. In addition, the factory itself will probably be the most efficient and up-to-date factory in Great Britain or Ireland.

I do not imagine that there will be any opposition to this Vote, inasmuch as it is devoted to an experiment, the bringing into cultivation of a crop that may be remunerative for the farmers. The Minister, when speaking on the Department's Vote, alluded to the fact that the Irish farmer is not so stupid as not to adopt new methods. I think there is very good proof of that in the fact that 9,000 or 10,000 acres are being grown this season, although farmers had very little time to prepare for the crop. Of course we take it that the factory will be run on the very best lines, and that it will be a success if certain conditions which obtain at present with regard to the price of sugar can be overcome. There is one point which I would like to put before the Minister —that is the necessity of having an analytical chemist to act at the factory on the farmers' behalf. We do not want to suggest that the company or the management of the company would do anything unfair with regard to the farmers, but at the same time it would give the farmers greater confidence in the management if an official of that sort were appointed to act on their behalf.

Looking at this estimate as an amount spent on an experiment, we can give it our approval in the hope that it will prove a success. With regard to the actual amount of the estimate I want to know from the Minister on what basis is this amount calculated. With the information now given, that we are to have between 9,000 and 10,000 acres of sugar beet grown this year, it seems to me that the sum down in the Vote will not be sufficient to meet the amount that will be required.

Mr. HOGAN

I stated that.

Therefore, we will have a supplementary Vote towards the end of the year. I would like if the Minister would make some statement with regard to the question of freights and the cost of bringing the sugar beet from the different stations. I know that arrangements have been made by the company with the railways whereby the sugar is being carted at reduced rates. I would like to know, if these arrangements are permanent, what is the Railway Tribunal going to do about them, and if they are to be embodied in the findings of the Railway Tribunal at a future date. I think it is important that farmers who are setting about growing beet at places a considerable distance from the factory should have some assurance that, if they continue to grow beet, the railway freights will not be raised on them at a later date. There are a good many things that could be said on this Vote, but I do not think this is the time. The matter was pretty well thrashed out when the Act dealing with sugar beet was passed. Certainly I am inclined to think that this subsidy will have to be continued after the expiration of the period in the Act. I say that because I cannot see how the manufacture of sugar can be an economic proposition in view of the great depreciation of sugar in the world market, and in view of the over-production of sugar, generally speaking, which has taken place all over the world. So far has this gone that cane-sugar producers, as in the case of rubber, are restricting their output.

I hope that the sugar market will improve before the end of the subsidy period, and I believe that the advantages which may be gained for agriculture generally in the way of the improvement in the farmers' methods of tillage and on the opening up and the cultivation of the land, will be a great advantage to agriculture generally. I believe the by-products which will be obtained from the manufacture of beet will compensate to a certain extent for the loss the State will have to bear in the payment of the subsidy. I am not in favour of subsidies at all, and will not support them. But to the extent that this subsidy is to be regarded as the starting of a new idea among the farming community, I am in favour of it. I hope that the industry will prove the success which those who are promoting it are forecasting.

I would be glad if the Minister would give the House some information with regard to the policy of the Executive Council on this question of sugar beet. Is it proposed to make this one factory an experimental factory, and, until the Government is satisfied or otherwise as to this experiment, to defer encouraging others to embark on the same industry, or is it, on the other hand, the desire of the Government to encourage others at this particular stage to embark on the development of this industry? That is a matter on which the House would like to have some information if the Minister can see his way to give it.

Mr. HOGAN

With regard to Deputy Conlan's point, that an arrangement should be made to have chemists at the factory, I take it that he is thinking of this point that the farmers who are delivering the beet would see that fair samples of their beet are taken. We have been considering that, and I think that is essentially a matter for the farmers themselves. It is not a matter for a chemist either. It is a matter of seeing that fair samples are drawn for the purpose of examination by the chemist. In other words, that the particular person who draws samples of beet from the farmers, which person is acting on behalf of the sugar manufacturing company, does not go to the worst beet but takes a fair sample of the crop. That is not a problem for a chemist. Any grower will know a good beet from a bad beet.

Surely a farmer would not know the sugar content of a particular sample of beet——

Mr. HOGAN

If Deputies will allow me finish, perhaps it will shorten matters. Any farmer who has been dealing with this matter for a very short time, and who takes the trouble to make himself up in it—and it would not take him more than an hour—would get to know good beet from bad beet, just as he would know good mangolds from bad. He would know when the beet is not fully matured, and consequently he would know that the sugar content of that beet is not high and that another sample of beet would yield a higher sugar content. It is for the farmers themselves to appoint a representative who would be present at the factory and who would see when they are drawing samples for examination that fair samples are taken.

Now, coming to the other point, this is not a suggestion, for instance, that a chemist should be sent to the factory and that that chemist should then pick out the best-looking sample, with the highest sugar content, and then ask the factory to pay on that sample. That would be absurd. You must take your chance. I should say there would not be much difference between the sugar content in a fair average well-grown beet and that the farmer or grower will have to be content that the sample that is taken is a fair sample, and if it should be found that on examination that sample yielded 14, 15, 16 or 17 per cent. of sugar he must accept that as the average. It would be absolutely unreasonable to expect the company to agree that a chemist would attend there on behalf of the farmers and pick out the beets that, after examination, showed the highest sugar content, that he would then analyse them, and if the samples analysed 18 per cent. of sugar content that he should tell the company: "This is the average we require you to take," whereas if they analysed 14 per cent. he would tell the company: "You must have another shot." If that is the point that is being put to me, I say that there is no necessity for a chemist there at all. As a rule there is a representative of the farmers there to see that the samples of beets, which are drawn for the purposes of examination, are fair samples of the crop. I think Deputy Conlan suggested something more than that; that not only should there be fair samples of the crop drawn, but that there should be someone there to see that the chemist carried out his operations honestly.

Perhaps we did not explain sufficiently what we do want. In England, I understand, the custom is to have a young man appointed in the factory to represent the farmers to see that their interests are looked after generally. He is usually, I take it, a young man of education with some scientific knowledge, and probably a graduate of an agricultural college. In Ireland, I expect, such a man would be taken from the College of Science. He would be there to see that fair samples of the beets were taken, and that when a farmer sent in several tons of beet that the bad ones were not picked. Our idea is that such a man would be there to see that the farmers got a square deal. I think the Minister is mistaken in saying that a practical farmer was the kind of man we were thinking of.

Mr. HOGAN

I said a representative of the farmers.

The kind of man we were thinking of was a man with a certain amount of scientific knowledge, a man who would be there to look after the interests of the farmers and to see that they got a square deal, and who, perhaps, at the same time would be acquiring a certain amount of information for himself. I understand that in England, in the contract between the factory and the farmers, a clause is embodied which makes provision for an arrangement of this kind. There is a small reduction made from each ton of beet to pay the salary of the officer. I do not know whether or not this is a matter for the Government, but if it is, then I think it is advisable that some such arrangement should be made here. Inasmuch as the Government are responsible for the subsidy which the factory is getting, I think they should see that the interests of the farmers are not overlooked.

Mr. HOGAN

The fact is, I think, that Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Conlan are on different points. Deputy Conlan used the word "chemist," but I think we all mean the same thing, that some representative of the farmers should be there to see that fair samples are drawn. We did discuss that with the company and there would be no difficulty whatever in having such an arrangement as far as the chemical work is concerned. That would be absolutely routine, and I do not think the Deputy need worry on that point. The next point raised was in connection with rates. I may say that the railway company and the sugar company have agreed on rates. For distances between 60 and 70 miles the rate would be in or about 1d. per ton per mile, which I think is a reasonable rate. Deputy Heffernan says he is inclined to think the subsidy will have to be continued to the end, that he hopes the experiment will be a success and so on.

The Deputy always finds it necessary to be desperately cautious. I hope also it will be a success, but I would not be so pessimistic about it if I were the Deputy. If we were to go on the line that we would never make an experiment unless we were absolutely certain that it was going to succeed, then we would get nowhere, and really that is the line the Deputy is talking on this matter. I could be cautions, wise, and profound about this if I wished to, but you cannot afford to be one or the other before the experiment. An experiment is essentially experimental, and there is no use in mobilising all these magnificent qualities of wisdom, profundity and caution in connection with it, because we have to abide the result. I think the result will show that Deputy Heffernan is wrong, but he may be right. It may be necessary to pay some subsidy, even after this experimental stage is over. I do not think the Deputy means it will be necessary to pay the full subsidy. As a result of the subsidy farmers are able to get £26 per statute acre for beet. That leaves to the farmer a very fine profit, and if the farmers are asked to take a lot less, as they will be when the business becomes commercialised, I will not have much sympathy with them. The experiments were begun not only to show what kind of beets could be grown, but what the sugar content of them would be.

The experiment is experimental from the point of view as to whether farmers could be got to grow beets at all, or whether you could induce foreign capital to the extent of £400,000 to be put into the industry in this country. It was necessary to have foreign capital, because there was no sugar beet being grown in Ireland, or in England for that matter, except by continental experts. So far as the point is concerned —(1) as to whether you could get farmers to grow beets, and (2) whether you could get foreign capital to come in here for the purpose of building and running a factory, it has passed the experimental stage. In three, four or five years' time we will be able to know exactly what amount of beets can be grown here on a commercial scale, and as to what the sugar content of the beets is likely to be. As we conduct our experiments we will, perhaps, be able to get a type of seed that will yield a high sugar content, and as we get on with our manurial experiments we will know where we are. Even up to the present the results of last year and of this spring have shown that the continental procedure of cultivation and of manurial processes cannot be transplanted here without some adaptation. With regard to policy, we have set up this factory as an experiment. It has cost a big sum of money, and we are not particularly anxious to pay more money for another factory. We would be foolish if we did. We hope by the time this Government or any other Government makes up its mind to start a new factory sufficient will be proved by this factory to get better terms. I may say that it is not generally known that our subsidy for the first three years is less than what the British subsidy is at present. That is a very striking fact. Our subsidy amounts to 24/6 for the first three years, and the British to 26/9, and that notwithstanding the fact that they have been growing beet in England since 1912.

Do you mean the subsidy on sugar beet for the full period?

Mr. HOGAN

I mean so far as the first years are concerned, that our subsidy is lower than what it is in England at present.

I think the Minister should make it plain that the total subsidy is less in England for the full period than it is here. The scale descends more quickly in England.

Mr. HOGAN

That is so.

Vote 29 put and agreed to.
Top
Share