Deputy Derrig gave notice that he would raise a question on the adjournment arising out of Question No. 2 on the Order Paper.
Public Business. - The Adjournment—The Beet-growing Industry.
I had a question on the Order Paper to-day with reference to the present crisis in the beet growing industry, which was of interest to every party in this House. (Question and answer quoted.) With the object of eliciting whether the answer of the Minister meant that the Government had actually intervened or were proposing to intervene, I put a supplementary question. In reply to that supplementary question, the Minister for Finance said: "I will refuse to answer on the adjournment and the Deputy can talk to empty Government Benches if he likes." That answer was made simply because, there being no information I, as a Deputy, chose to raise this matter, which I think I am perfectly entitled to do. I question whether the Minister for Finance, or any other Minister, has the right to show such gross discourtesy to any Deputy.
Hear, hear.
This matter is not a trivial matter; it is an important matter. It is a matter which the Press has been discussing for several months. It is a matter which members of the different parties in this House were called together to discuss in Jury's Hotel nearly a month ago. From that conference, a demand was sent out, signed by Deputies on the opposite benches as well as by Deputies on this side, to the Government to intervene. Since that resolution was passed, published in the Press, and forwarded to the Executive Council by the Beet Growers' Association, no action has been taken. The Ministry may take up the attitude that raising the question here is likely to prejudice any action they may take when intervening in the dispute or is likely to prejudice the chances of bringing about successful arbitration, but I believe the beet growers are entitled to whatever moral support they can get from this House. The Beet Growers' Association represents the five or six thousand farmers who are growing beet. In addition to that, they can claim to stand for providing employment for about 500 men in the district around Carlow town. They represent both these interests. When they approached the Carlow Sugar Manufacturing Company, the Company did not suggest that both sides should approach the Government with a view to mediation. Neither did the Carlow Sugar Manufacturing Company seem disposed to make any advance towards meeting the demands of the Beet Growers' Association. On the contrary, instead of helping that Association, which represents those who originally sacrificed so much to make the beet industry successful and profitable, they tried to pass over the heads of the Association, and they have been engaged for the past few months in trying to make contracts with individual growers.
Those contracts would mean that those who really established the industry—the farmers who lost a good deal by it, and gave a good deal of employment—would be left out in the cold. It would mean that there would be an entirely new body of farmers concerned who would not be giving a great deal of employment, and who would not be in a position to make the industry as successful as the original growers. These farmers would be engaged upon contracts for a single year. That would simply mean that, once the Association had been weakened, the factory could drive any terms they wished with the growers. Having broken up the Association, which the factory itself helped to create, and which it subsidised, it is obvious that collective bargaining would be at an end. I raise the matter not with a view to prejudicing the Government, but in order to strengthen the beet growers' postion. I understand the factory have a case, but we have not heard what their case is in full. The Government are in a position to get both sides of the case. We do not claim that the information which the factory has at its disposal, and which is regarded as a commercial secret, should be made known, but what we do demand is that some action should be taken in the matter. I fail to see why the Minister, when the question was raised to-day, could not state definitely whether the Government was taking action or not. If the Government claim that a statement of that kind would injure the chances of bringing about a settlement, I cannot agree. If the Government intervenes, the matter will undoubtedly become known. It will get into the Press. I am only too anxious to bring about a settlement. If the beet growers are satisfied with the terms arrived at, nobody will be more pleased than I shall be. But I certainly feel that on this, the first opportunity that we have had of raising the matter, other Deputies as well as myself, should impress upon the Government the necessity for immediate action. Another week and the opportunity will practically have passed. Now that the Minister for Agriculture has come in, I ask if he can add anything to his statement of this afternoon.
There is no doubt that bodies of interested people outside this House, and Deputies of this House, have brought pressure to bear on certain departments of Government during the past few months to bring about a settlement between the rival parties. The Ministers to-day, in replying to questions, indicated quite clearly that discussion in this Dáil would not be in any way helpful in bringing about the settlement which so many Deputies wish. With all due respect to Deputy Derrig, I do not think his speech to-night will contribute in any way to bringing about a settlement between the rival parties to this particular dispute. After all, the Minister, or whoever is acting on behalf of the Minister, in any negotiations that take place between the rival parties to this dispute, must be absolutely free and untrammelled. For that reason, no discussion in this Dáil, or outside it, can be in any way helpful in bringing about the settlement which we all desire, and which we hope will be realised later. In disputes of this kind, nobody can possibly say at what particular point intervention should take place. The dispute has undoubtedly been going on for a long period, but we all hope that the fact that it has proceeded for such a length of time may render it more easy of satisfactory settlement.
I have listened very carefully and attentively to the remarks made by Deputy Derrig, and I could not see anything in them that would be likely to prejudice any negotiations that might take place from the intervention of the Ministry. There is nothing unusual in any Deputy coming to the House and demanding the intervention of the Ministry in any ordinary trade dispute. Many times from these benches demands have been made and acceded to by the Ministry for intervention, in the hope that intervention on the part of the Department of Industry and Commerce might prevent a dispute which would affect the trade of the country. This dispute, as far as I can see, is much on the same lines, with this difference: that the taxpayers are much more deeply concerned with the result of any negotiations that may take place than they would be in negotiations in connection, say, with a dispute between railway employees and the railway management or any similar dispute. There is a very large amount of taxpayers' money involved in this transaction, but it would not be right at this stage to demand from the Minister for Agriculture, or any other Minister who might later have to intervene and who would be well advised to intervene, any statement. At the proper time we should expect a statement as to the merits of the dispute.
I have been studying the balancesheet which was laid on the Table of the House in connection with the working of the beet factory for the last year for which returns are available. I find that the amount paid in subsidy at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer was £442,000. The amount paid by the directors of the factory for the raw material for the manufacture of sugar amounted to £385,000. Therefore, the factory was presented by the taxpayers with raw beet for nothing and with £60,000 or so as a present. I hope these figures, which cannot be disputed and which are available in the library for any member that wants to examine them, will not be overlooked by the people charged with any negotiations that may take place. I do not think there is anybody in this House who knows more about the whole situation than the Minister for Agriculture. Personally, I am prepared to leave it to the good judgment of the Minister for Agriculture to intervene in whatever manner he may think fit. But I think it is the desire of the beet-growers and of the Labour Party—Labour is deeply interested in this matter—that the intervention should be as early as possible. The beet industry has helped, through those who had the courage to grow it, to give a good deal of additional employment in the beet-growing counties.
There is a much more important aspect from the Labour point or view. The question of collective bargaining is involved in this transaction, and it is a very great pleasure to members of the Labour Party to join with the members of the Farmers' Union, with whom they disagreed in many matters in the past, in endeavouring to maintain the right of collective bargaining. I believe that if the Beet Growers' Association, which is a well-conducted organisation catering for the needs and interests of the beet growers, is beaten in this matter, it will mean the dismal failure on the part of the farmers in a last attempt to organise and accomplish something on behalf of the farming community. I hope, as a Labour Deputy, that every Deputy who has given consideration to this matter will back the Beet Growers' Association in the fight to maintain for the beet growers an economic price for the raw material which they supply to the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company. I do not think the Minister for Agriculture should be asked, at this stage, to make any statement or to commit himself in the House in any way, but I hope he will, as soon as possible, bring the conflicting parties together and arrange for an amicable settlement to the best of his ability.
This question is a very important one in our area and I quite agree with Deputy Davin, while being at one with him in the desire to do nothing that might prejudice a settlement. I also agree with Deputy Derrig that time is of the essence of the contract. We are getting to the period when the ground is prepared and when the sowing will commence, and I think something should be done as quickly as possible. Forty-four shillings a ton seems a very small price and I know that farmers in my area will not be satisfied with it. I think the factory should be more generous. I will not comment further than that, but I hope that we shall have good news in the near future.
I wish to be associated with this request to the Government to move as quickly as possible in connection with this dispute. It is a very urgent matter. Within the next ten days or a fortnight, the farmers will have to sow, and a settlement should be reached before then, because the members are determined to stand loyally by their Association. I, as a member of the Beet Growers' Association, have a dual responsibility. I must stand loyally by the Beet Growers' Association and demand fair play for them and, as a member for a constituency in which beet growing has been extensively carried on, I desire to urge upon the Government that the time is now ripe for their intervention. Within the next fortnight, the matter must be settled. The farmers feel that the factory can afford to pay the price they look for, and I was glad to be associated with a meeting of all Parties in Dublin recently. It was very hopeful to see all Parties united and linked up in their demand for fair play for the Beet Growers' Association. That was a lead which, I think, we should like to see followed up. We had all Parties represented and unanimous in their finding. That finding was sent by resolution to the Government. The Government were asked to intervene, and the members of the Association affirmed that the price offered was ridiculous. I am glad that Deputy Derrig has raised this matter because it is very urgent. If we are anxious to maintain the beet growing industry, the growers will have to be given every consideration possible. If the growers are let down on this occasion, I, as a beet grower for the last three years, will drop out of the industry, as will others. If the grower gets fair play and encouragement, he will continue to grow beet.
As so many Laoighis Deputies have spoken, I think it may be well to let it be known that there are other areas than Laoighis interested. As one who was instrumental in launching the Beet Growers' Association and who presided at the first meeting at which it was formed, I should be very disappointed if the beet growers proved that they were not worth their salt in this dispute. I do not want them to adopt an unreasonable attitude, and I hope it will not be alleged that they have adopted that attitude. From my point of view, and from the point of view of the growers and the general public, the factory people had better get it out of their heads that 44/- per ton is going to meet the position. It is not going to meet it, or anything like it. I think it would be foolish to ask the Minister, if his intervention is going to be of any use, to make a pronouncement as to what his opinion is. I hope the beet growers will prove that there are not as many black sheep in their ranks as is alleged. I know the other people are going around the country trying to detach the grower—the small grower especially—from the ranks of the Association. I know they have gone to people who were not growers at all up to now, and have asked them to come in. The only thing I find fault with amongst the Beet Growers' Association is that there are a good many people in their ranks who are purely gamblers and intend to grow only as long as this subsidy lasts. When the subsidy goes, they will go out. My whole concern is for the people who want a means of living, and who want to use beet as an economic crop for the future. There are gamblers, and my sympathy is not very much with them.
My sympathies are with the growers, and I believe that they should get a reasonable price that would compensate them for their labours. The beet-growers will not adopt an attitude of unreasonableness, but they are determined to stick together as an association. I trust that some satisfactory settlement will be reached in the dispute.
It is a regrettable thing that this unfortunate dispute should have arisen between the beet-growers and the Carlow Factory directors. I think, however, that the time is now ripe when a settlement should be made between the disputing parties. The time is rapidly approaching when it will be necessary for the farmers to make preparations for the sowing of this year's crop of sugar beet, and the sooner a settlement can be made the better it will be for those people. I have not very much to say on the matter. The Minister has made it known that it would not be very advisable for him to make any statement this evening. I do not think it would be wise on our part to put any great pressure on him. At the same time, I was anxious to give my view of the matter. The sooner that negotiations are brought to a head, and the sooner that some statement is made that will lead to a settlement, the better it will be for the beet-growers and for the factory. I have no doubt but that the Beet Growers' Association will be quite reasonable in the stand they will take in this matter, but at the same time they will be firm. In my locality there is very little hope that the factory will secure any beet unless they offer more favourable conditions.
I would like to say a few words in the hope that the discussion here to-night may hasten a settlement between the Beet Growers' Association and the directors of the Carlow Factory. I can say on behalf of the people engaged in beet-growing in County Wexford that if the directors of the factory think they are going to get beet grown at 44/- a ton, they are making a great mistake. No doubt in Wexford, as in other counties, a small amount of beet will be grown, but a very large section of the growers would not be prepared to accept 44/-.
Or much more either.
Mr. Jordan
It would want to be considerably more in order to induce them to grow beet. I do not know that the Minister can say very much now on the matter. I wish the meeting that we had in Jury's Hotel, and, that was referred to by Deputy Derrig, accepted the suggestion I made, that a deputation be sent directly to the Minister. Instead of doing that, they passed a resolution which was sent on in due course. If my suggestion had been adopted, and if the deputation had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Minister in the hope of getting him to intervene, there is every possibility that a settlement might have been brought about. It is my definite opinion that a round-table conference with the Minister present is the best method of approaching a settlement of this unfortunate dispute.
I would like to associate myself with the Deputies who have spoken on this matter. I believe a good deal can be done in the way of a settlement. The time is coming shortly when the farmers should be ready to sow the crop, and if within the next fortnight something is not done with a view to bringing the dispute to an end, the outlook for the farmers who are prepared to sow beet is a poor one. I am prepared to help in any way I can. I am willing to do anything I can do with other Deputies in bringing about a settlement.
I would like to join with Deputy Derrig and other Deputies in the remarks that they have made on this subject. In the County Louth a considerable amount of beet has been grown, particularly in that part of the county which has been severely hit owing to the prevalence of black scab. I refer to the Cooley district. As the Minister for Agriculture is aware, that district has been scheduled for the last ten or twelve years, and the farmers in the area have suffered very great hardships. They have now taken to the growing of beet, and if there is not a settlement reached as between the beet growers and the factory people a very serious situation will arise with regard to the farmers, particularly in County Louth. I hope peace will ultimately prevail, and that an amicable settlement will be arrived at as between the Carlow people and the beet growers. It has been said by men in the business that it is almost impossible to grow beet at any such price as 44/-. Considering the position of agriculture at the moment, it is absolutely essential that a settlement of this very vexed question should take place as soon as possible. I hope, without putting the Government in an awkward position, that some steps will be taken to bring about the desired result.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 22nd February, 1929.