Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 10 Jul 1931

Vol. 39 No. 15

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Beet Sugar Subsidy.

I beg to move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £162,500 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Congnamh Airgid d'íoc ar scór Siúicre Bhiatais (Uimh. 37 de 1925).

That a sum not exceeding £162,500 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for payment of Subsidy in respect of Beet Sugar (No. 37 of 1925).

I move:—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration." I want to ask Deputies to refuse to agree to the payment of the sum now demanded by the Minister, unless and until the directors of the factory, who are to benefit by this payment, recognise the Beet Growers' Association as a body entitled to bargain with the factory on behalf of the growers. I ask the Dáil to refuse to pay any further sums to the Belgian directors of the factory until these directors agree to pay an economic price for the raw material. Members of this party who were in the House when the Bill of 1925 was being discussed, definitely committed themselves to the payment of a subsidy for the purpose of helping to develop this new industry. They did so on the very definite condition that as long as the subsidy was being paid to the factory at the expense of the taxpayer the growers should get a guaranteed price. They suggested in an amendment supported, strange to say, by the Farmers' Party, that at the end of the subsidy period the Government should share half the ownership of the factory and its assets.

Apart from these considerations, the Government has already committed itself—some of the Ministers, when they were in the country, committed the Government to it—to the establishment of a farmers' organisation for industrial purposes. Strange as it may appear, we of the Labour Party are supporting, and will continue to support, the organisation of farmers for industrial purposes. We look upon the present dispute as a challenge by the Belgian directors to the right of collective bargaining and to the right of the farmers to organise themselves for industrial purposes. For that reason we think no Government that believes in the setting up of an organisation for such a purpose should pay the people's money while the dispute exists.

There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who has studied the situation which has led to this dispute that the real issue is the refusal of the directors to recognise the Beet Growers' Association. Towards the end of last year the Association made representations to the factory manager to arrange for an early meeting to discuss the question of price in the present year and during the remainder of the subsidy period. The object was to arrive at an agreement on the question of price, if that were possible. The directors of the factory persistently refused to make any arrangement for such a meeting. They agreed to meet the representatives of the beet growers only when they were aware that the growers had the land ready for the crop. It was therefore at the last moment, as these people thought that they agreed to enter into negotiations with the growers. They offered 38/- per ton—a reduction of 8/- on the previous year.

The negotiations broke down completely, and the directors actually ordered officials of the organisation to get out of the offices provided for them on the factory premises. My information is that they gave them 24 hours' notice to clear out. That is a definite challenge to the existence of the Association. They also refused to pay to the Association money due to it, on the pretext that the money might be used in the Association's campaign against beet-growing. The officials in formed a prominent Carlow citizen who inquired about future negotiations that they would have no more dealings with the Association. They have taken certain action against the Executive of the Association in the courts of this country. The beet growers believe that the object is to exhaust their funds.

These things prove quite clearly that there is a definite challenge. I am sure the President will admit that. I and members of this Party believe that that challenge should, in the ordinary course, come within the meaning of the Trades Disputes Act. It is a dispute between the directors as employers and the growers as employees. I understand some prominent legal gentlemen have been consulted as to whether the dispute could be brought within the meaning of the Trades Disputes Act. There appears to be some doubt on that question. The commonsense interpretation is that it could be brought within the terms of that Act. That is the belief of anyone who countenances the existence of organisations for industrial purposes.

I will not enter into the history of the factory, the conditions under which the Belgian directors were brought into this country, or any other matters relating thereto. All those things are well known to Deputies. It was originally intended to erect a 10,000 tons factory, but subsequent to the passing of the Act an agreement was made for the erection of a factory with a far larger capacity. That involved far greater financial advantages to those who entered into the agreement. It appears, however, to many of us to be in conflict with the spirit and even the letter of the Act of 1925. The directors admit in their balance sheets that they have been paying interest to the shareholders at the rate of 15 per cent. Anybody who makes a careful study of the balance sheets will, if he considers the amount set aside for depreciation, for special reserves and other items of that kind, plainly see that the directors, during the past year, were paying a dividend actually at the rate of 30 per cent.

I was informed about two years ago by a gentleman who was in a position to know that the beet growers, especially those who employed agricultural labourers and who were paying the existing rate of wages in the district, could not produce beet at less than £2 2s. per ton. The figure may have been slightly reduced during the intervening period. The fact is that the demand which the factory is making upon the grower that he should supply the raw material at 38/- per ton is a demand which means that they are asking the growers to supply it below the cost of production. Taking into consideration the fact that the State and the taxpayers are supplying the raw material to the factory for nothing, and giving a fairly large sum in addition, I fail to see why we, as representatives of the people, should vote a sum of £162,500, which is £54,000 greater than was given to the factory last year, as long as the directors continue to refuse to recognise the Beet Growers' Association, and as long as they insist—and I hope they will not be able to do it, and I do not think they will—upon the growers supplying the factory with beet below the cost of production.

In the negotiations which took place in the early part of this year, and which broke down, the Directors put forward certain figures to the Beet Growers' Association as a justification for the demand for a reduction of 8/- per ton in the price of beet. They claimed that a sum of £45,000 should be set aside for depreciation; £3,400 for Directors fees; £21,800 for taxes; £40,000 for dividend and £4,800 to be carried forward. They produced these figures, totalling £115,000, as figures which the Beet Growers' Association should admit the directors and shareholders were entitled to receive. We are asked to pay over to this factory £162,500, out of which £115,000 on the figures produced by the Directors will go in the main for depreciation and the payment of dividend—a very hefty dividend at that figure. I fail to see why we should admit that the factory is entitled to receive a thirty per cent. return upon the invested capital and, at the same time, insist upon the growers producing the beet below the cost of production. The thing is too silly for words. I hope Deputies, regardless of Party, will agree not to vote this sum unless and until the issues in dispute are settled through the agency of the Government that is asking for the money.

With sixteen or twenty other Deputies, I attended several conferences with the executive of the Beet Growers' Association when the issues involved were discussed at considerable length, and at the last meeting it was agreed that a deputation representing all parties in the House should be appointed to wait upon the Minister for Agriculture to put before him certain proposals which were unanimously agreed to. The first proposal was that the Government should be asked to use their influence to force the Directors to recognise the Beet Growers' Association. The second proposal was that they should take steps, whether by amending the existing Beet Subsidy Act, or otherwise, to provide for compulsory arbitration on the question of price. So far as I am concerned, as some Deputies listening to me know, I am not by any means enthusiastic in regard to proposal No. 2. It is possible that the Government could, by amending the Act or in other ways, persuade the directors to agree to compulsory arbitration.

Is the Deputy in favour of compulsory arbitration?

Deputy Good is trying to anticipate the argument I was going to use against it. It is quite possible that the President and the Ministers could persuade the directors to agree to compulsory arbitration on the question of price. The directors might agree to that, but while an arbitrator or arbitrators could decide what was the economic price to be paid for beet in a particular area, the arbitrators or the Government or the directors could not compel the beet growers to grow beet at a particular price. Therefore, I do not by any means lend my support to proposal No. 2, and I made that quite clear at the meeting. Proposal No. 3 was that the Government, through the Minister for Agriculture or the President, should approach the directors of the factory, who refused to work the factory, because that is what it amounts to at present, and put forward on behalf of the Beet Growers' Association a proposal for the purchase of the factory at the figure now shown in the balance sheet as supplied by the directors. The value placed upon the factory when erected was £400,000. Whether that figure was accurate or not I am not in a position to say, but I do know, and any Deputy who has studied the latest balance sheet of the factory knows, that the capital has been written down, or, in other words, that there has been written off for depreciation a sum of £220,000, leaving it, to the ordinary man who is not a financial expert like Deputy Good, to conclude that the present value of the factory is £180,000. If the Belgian directors of the factory refuse to pay an economic price to the Irish beet growers to supply raw material, and allow the factory to be closed down, as undoubtedly it will be, partially if not wholly, for the present year, then I say it ought to be a good business proposal for these people to get an offer representing their own value of the factory as shown in the balance sheet, and therefore other Deputies and I are enthusiastically supporting this proposal. We hope that if the directors do not alter their present attitude on the question of price, they will accept this very generous offer on behalf of the Beet Growers' Association.

I am not sure whether the Minister for Agriculture or the President has conveyed that proposal to the directors, but I would be glad to hear whether that has been done and, if so, what attitude the directors have adopted towards what I consider to be a very generous proposal in all the circumstances. The people's money is invested in this factory, and it is the duty of their representatives in this House to see that it is not closed down and the industry thereby destroyed. Deputy Good of course does not agree with me. I would be very suspicious of my own judgment in matters of this kind if the Deputy agreed with me.

Then you are suspicious.

There are some members of this party who do not admire all the leaders of the Beet Growers' Association. We would not be inclined to pander to some of the people who occupy the seats of the mighty on the Executive of the Beet Growers' Association, because we believe that the big beet growers, who are controlling the executive, have used their position to a certain extent to prevent the small beet growers getting acreage in certain parts of the Midland counties. We believe that the beet growers are entitled to an organisation and to establish an association for their own protection. I am one of those who believes that labour can never hope to get much from the agricultural community in the shape of better conditions for agricultural labourers unless the Labour Party or those who represent the agricultural labourers, help, and do their part, in putting the farming community on a firm financial foundation. That is why we are giving our enthusiastic support to the beet growers in their fight against this tyrannical imported combination from Belgium and Czecho Slovakia and other countries. Some of those people are used to ruling uncivilised races in the Congo and other places like that. But I hope the result of this dispute will be to prove to them that the Irish farmers are not quite the slaves that they have handled in other countries.

Hear, hear.

I am delighted Deputy Gorey is backing me in that. I know he expressed certain doubt as to the whole proposal when originally mooted but I know he will not go so far as to say that the growers in Carlow and Kilkenny should supply beet to the factory at 38s. a ton. On that aspect of the case I would be delighted to hear what he has to say. If he believes that this is not a fair price I suggest that the only way to bring it to a conclusion and a head is to refuse to vote the money asked for by the Government and thereby persuade the Government, through the President, or the Minister for Agriculture, to enter into negotiations with the factory without further delay and to persuade or compel them to recognise the Beet Growers' Association.

Mr. Byrne

What power have the Government to do that?

And last though not least if the factory people are not inclined to work the factory and to carry out the spirit of the Beet Sugar Act of 1925 to use their influence to persuade these gentlemen to accept the sum of £180,000 for the factory, and to put the factory in the hands of the Irish Farmer Beet Growers to be used for their own benefit and thereby keep the money in the country which is now going out of the country.

Deputy Byrne asked a question as to what power there is to intervene in this dispute. There is the power of this Dáil to intervene in any dispute, and the fact that no provision to that effect was made under the Beet Sugar Subsidy Act shows that a mistake was made.

Mr. Byrne

On a point of explanation, may I say that the question I asked was what power the Government has to compel the factory to accept a certain price?

What is to prevent them looking for power to do it?

They have the legislative power of the Dáil.

Mr. Byrne

This is a private concern.

They have the legislative powers of the Dáil to compel the factory, or anybody else, to do what the Dáil wants it to do. Deputy Davin has stated the case very moderately indeed, and has put it on the level of a trade dispute. Even if this were a trade dispute between private concerns, in which the State had no financial responsibility whatever, I think it is of such magnitude that some steps ought to have been taken by the Government to bring the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. If the Minister for Agriculture or any other Minister takes up the attitude which was apparently reflected in a leading article in the "Irish Independent," that this matter was going to be settled by a process of haggling or fair or market bargaining, in which eventually the factory, if it were strong enough to sustain the struggle, and if it were to be a question of the survival of the fittest, would ultimately force the price of beet down to the price of other cereals, then all I say is that such negotiations are only a farce. To be of any value, negotiation must be such that both parties are having fair play. It was because I felt that the beet growers were not having fair play in these negotiations that I demanded that compulsory arbitration should be introduced by the Minister. I did not believe that compulsory arbitration was the best method unless it was going to definitely settle the question for the remainder of the subsidy period.

Deputy Davin has referred to the very important question of the small beet growers. We have been at a complete loss to understand what the attitude of mind of the Executive Council has been in the whole matter. First and foremost, as Deputy Davin pointed out, they made a three years' contract for the protection of the growers and a ten years' contract for the factory. The Minister for Agriculture will say that it was quite impossible to get a longer contract than three years for the protection of the growers. The fact that the contract was made for the first three years must have clearly indicated to the Ministry that after the three years' period the factory was going to take advantage of the new circumstances to force down the prices gradually. I think the Minister for Agriculture himself was not adverse to that.

The Minister will have an opportunity of explaining what his attitude actually was, and if I am incorrect in stating what his attitude was I hope he will point out the deficiency, but I think the attitude of the Minister was that the ultimate end in view was to make this a commercial proposition and that at the end of the subsidy period, if possible, we should get as near as we could to running this factory without subsidy or with the minimum possible subsidy. Therefore I take it as a hypothesis, at any rate, that the Minister for Agriculture, if beet growers were willing and if the circumstances generally seemed to favour that course, was not against a reduction in the price of beet. The Beet Growers' Association was not against a reduction in the price of beet, nor against a fair return to the factory, so long as it could be shown that any reduction made was necessary and reasonable, and that all sides were making their sacrifice. But, as I said before, it seemed that the beet growers were called upon to make all the sacrifice.

I say that the Minister for Agriculture, in assuming that this question could be settled by negotiations, and in allowing the beet growers with their small organisation to be put in the position of making a stand-up fight, so to speak, against the factory, was not doing the right thing by the beet growers. He may say he had no power, but he always had the Dáil to come to for any power he wanted. What was the alternative to the Minister seeking powers from the Dáil to deal with this situation? The alternative was to let the industry collapse during the present year and to prejudice it very seriously for the remainder of its existence, if not to close it down altogether. When we regard the present condition of agriculture and when we take into account the widespread depression is it not a serious thing indeed that £360,000 should be taken out of circulation in an area of an hour's run of the Carlow factory? It is a very serious thing indeed.

In Great Britain, where these syndicates and combines were able to protect themselves and were able to drive a very hard bargain as they have driven here, they were ultimately compelled to face the facts. When the Minister says that he could not interfere, that he had no power to interfere, I say that he could have come to the Dáil and told the House what steps he was taking. If the Dáil were satisfied that these steps were the best that could have been taken in the circumstances then it would be in a position to pass a favourable judgment on the Minister. If, on the other hand, the Dáil was satisfied that the Minister was not taking sufficient steps and was not asking for the powers that he should have asked for, the Dáil could have expressed an opinion on that. In the long run it would have been far better for the country if the whole question had been discussed early in the year in the Dáil as it was in the British Parliament.

So far back as the 12th February the British Prime Minister made a statement in the British Parliament, and announced the terms of settlement with the beet growers in that country. It was only on 2nd March, when the spring season was well on, that the factory proprietors here even designed to approach the beet growers on this question. It was quite obvious from the beginning that the factory owners were prepared to close down the factory and dislocate the industry, leaving the surrounding districts to suffer loss of all the money involved. It was quite obvious that they were prepared to do that if, at the end of this season, they found the beet growers in the position that their organisation had disappeared and that the small growers, many of whom no doubt would be growing beet in the interval, would increase in numbers and that the other growers, seeing that the Association was broken up, would be forced, since they have no other alternative in the present position of agriculture, to grow beet at whatever price the factory was pleased to pay.

The British interfered in the matter. It may be that there were particular circumstances over there. There was a change in the subsidy. At the present time the factories in England are only getting 6/6 per cwt. as subsidy. That price is to operate for the next three years, whereas formerly they were getting 13/-. There was a dispute about the price of beet. Therefore, the British interfered. The first thing they did was to examine the books of those factories. I am satisfied from the case that the beet growers have made, and from the failure of the factory to meet that case, that the growers have a good case. I would like to know whether the Minister for Agriculture has, in fact, gone into this very matter. If he saw that negotiations were fruitless and if he, as he later admitted when electioneering needs demanded it, saw that the right was on the side of the growers and the factory was in the wrong, and that the factory could pay a bigger price, why did he not take steps to place that information at the disposal of the Dáil?

There was the greatest possible difficulty in raising this question in the Dáil at all. It was suggested that because there were negotiations going on, or that they might take place, in some way it might prejudice the question if there was a discussion here. I take it that it is the duty of members of the House who are interested in this matter, when they were made aware of the losses that were accruing to their constituents, to press home the matter on every possible occasion. The British Ministry examined the question. They went into the books and satisfied themselves that the British factories were not making a great profit on the 38/-. On the other hand, they said that they were not going to compel the growers to accept a price that would be unremunerative until they had gone further into the question. They asked the factories what about the reserves they had, what about the profits they were building up, and what about the large sums they had set aside for depreciation. The British Ministry compelled the factories, at least the most important group, I think, the Anglo-Dutch group, to forgo all profits during the coming year. I think that probably the factories themselves had been accommodating in the matter. The British Ministry found it an easier task to deal with them than the Minister for Agriculture here would have; at least, that is his contention, in dealing with the Carlow factory. But if he found that it was necessary to take steps to do here what has been done in England, and that the factory proprietors in Carlow were not prepared to meet him, then I think he should have come to the Dáil for power to enable him to deal with the situation. Dr. Addison, speaking in the British Parliament on 16th March last, said: "My information is that the combine of the Anglo-Dutch Group of British factories are prepared to operate their factories for the manufacture of white sugar from homegrown beet, until January, 1931, not for the purpose of making profits or increasing their reserves, but in order to utilise the whole of the net proceeds of such manufacture for payment for beet." That has been carried a step further recently. A special additional grant of 1/3 per cwt. has been given. The additional grant is merely to cover the present exigency, and is to be repaid as soon as the price of sugar increases. It is also a condition in England that all the acreage offered to the factory should be taken up.

I submit that instead of pretending that this matter could have been settled by negotiation when in fact it could not have been, when the owners apparently were determined that they were not going to settle it, but rather were prepared to be at a loss for the present year if they could break up the Association and drive down the price to the growers to the lowest level for the remaining period, it was up to the Government to take some steps, such as the introduction of compulsory arbitration, or some other step to deal with the situation. I would like to know if the Minister is in favour of the position that has been put up in County Carlow. The small farmers in a large number of cases have been deprived of the benefits of the subsidy because they were only able to grow a very small acreage, but the amounts that they would have got even on a few acres would have meant a great deal to them, particularly at the present time. Is the Minister now prepared to subscribe to the doctrine that the growers who have made the factory a success up to the present, who have built up this Association, whatever its faults may have been, and who have proved themselves to be efficient, and who, as I think everyone will admit, have made such a very good case, should be wiped out of existence by the factory—simply to put them aside and to build up some form of new organisation where the basis of agreement will not be the price of labour and which, as Deputy Davin has brought out, will not affect the large numbers of labourers who are employed? You may have the small farmers, or even the cottagers, who place hardly any value on their own labour and do not take that into consideration in a commercial way, prepared to take a much smaller price. We have come to the parting of the ways. If I had thought that the Minister was in favour of that, that it was his idea that the big growers who having served their purpose, should be turned aside after the factory had been built up, if only the factory had been able to get the acreage from another type, and if he were satisfied that the country generally was going to benefit by a change in the type of growers, by giving people who hitherto have been excluded certain advantages over the remaining period, I would say that he had a case, but he has not a case. He has not stated whether he is in favour of that or whether he is open to the suggestion. There is at any rate the feeling in my mind that the Minister all along, seeing that a reduction in these prices was inevitable——

Mr. Hogan

What is the Deputy's feeling on that?

My own feeling is that I want to see the largest possible number of persons growing beet. I want to see the small growers getting benefit out of it as well as the big growers, but I am not prepared to say that the small growers should come in now at the expense of breaking up the Association. If the Association is not representative of the small as well as of the large growers, it should be made representative of every small grower. Every small grower should go into it, and should abide by the policy laid down.

Mr. Hogan

That is my position.

With regard to the figures the point is that negotiations were carried out before. That is the reason why I am so strongly against the idea of negotiations. Negotiations were carried out before. The Minister sent down his experts. Unless the experts had some special knowledge, unless they had got the accountants' and the auditors' reports to go into the position themselves, and were in a position to come to a decision themselves, apart from the information they got when they sat down at the table to conduct negotiations I do not think their presence there would have been of great value. If you simply go there as a party holding a watching brief it is a question in the long run of which of the two parties can beat the other down. I think that the English Minister summed up the situation very well when he said he could not stand for negotiation. Negotiation in the long run seemed to mean that the gamble was altogether on the growers' side. The other people could afford to wait. I think there is a weakness about negotiations, particularly when, as I say, the negotiations were never seriously entered into by the factory. I do not think that the Minister will contradict me on this, that there is nothing to show that the factory ever seriously considered the question of negotiations, or that they were really serious about it.

There is one point that is quite clear. It has been made by the growers and I have not seen any reply to it. It is this, that during the last five years the factory hoped to get an advantage from the increase in the subsidy, that it was their policy at the end of the first five year period, having got the maximum acreage, the maximum tonnage and the maximum number of people interested, to force down prices for the remaining period, although they were getting an additional £54,000 per year. Their intention apparently was to put that sum of money into their pockets. The fall in the price of sugar altered the situation but did the factory suggest that the £54,000 extra money which they got should go against the fall in the price of sugar? No, the factory suggested that more than £54,000—£80,000 in fact—should be borne by the growers. That is to say and the statement is not contradicted, that something like £80,000 would have been the decrease in the value of sugar as against what you have, namely, the extra subsidy of £54,000. The Beet Growers' Association put that £54,000 extra subsidy against the £80,000 deficit and pointed out that £26,000 was the sum left. Are the factories at the loss of that £26,000? No, because they calculate that something like £24,000 is accounted for by the sale of sugar pulp so that the factory are only about £2,000 out of pocket, which works out at about 3d. per cwt.

The statement of the growers seems to be supported by the fact that when negotiations were on previously, the factory said that they could not possibly pay more than 44/-. They paid 46/-, and at the end of the year they paid a 15 per cent. dividend. They had a net profit of £127,000, and they put £40,000 to reserve. That 15 per cent. profit amounted to 3/- per cwt. on beet. Therefore if they had been satisfied to do without their 15 per cent. profit, leaving out the question of depreciation, they could have paid 49/-. It is well known amongst the beet growers in Carlow, who have studied the question that the beet growers did make a mistake when they did not stick out for a higher price on that occasion. I myself was greatly disappointed when they did not. I think it was practically admitted by some of the factory people that they could have paid 49/-. Under these circumstances is it to be thought reasonable that the beet growers should accept negotiations, when the only advance to be made by the factory was that they were to give a potential shilling, which depended on an advance in the price of sugar, and that the growers were to be called upon to make a further sacrifice of 8/-, while later on the factory would come along again with large profits, possibly large reserves, large sums for depreciation and for various other things?

I think the situation early in the year clearly showed that Government intervention in this matter was necessary. The taxpayer has a very substantial interest in this. Between the direct and indirect subsidy we have paid out almost £2,000,000 up to the present and there are still five years to go. We have given these people a monopoly. We have given them a remission of excise duty which does not exist in Great Britain. I am not now going to go into the basis of the transaction but I think there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that these people, when starting the factory here, were incurring enormous risks, as the Minister suggests. He suggested, on a former occasion, that the smell of petrol was in the air, and that the smoke of burning houses, etc., could be smelt on the breeze when these people arrived in Carlow. My answer to that is that these people had the credit of the State at their backs. They knew that any government that came into power would be bound to honour the obligation. They had also carried out practical experiments, and we may be quite sure that these gentlemen who had spent their lifetime in conducting similar concerns on the continent, and who had probably been in England as well, were quite satisfied that this was a mine and a treasure for them—once they got in.

Even if it be assumed that they put up the whole of the £380,000—and in doing that they were backed by foreign banks and syndicates—even if they built the factory, the total capital involved in doing that was practically paid off out of the profits of the first three years. At the end of five years they find themselves in the position that they have accumulated enormous profits, greatly in excess of their original capital and that they have now got the factory free. Originally these people said that they could not possibly pay 46/-. Yet they were able to accumulate substantial profits at the end of the season.

Surely the whole circumstances surrounding this situation should have shown the Government that these people were adopting a policy of grab, and that they were only interested to get everything they could out of the country. No one objects to their getting reasonable profits, but Deputies should bear in mind that the original purpose of the subsidy was to give the tillage farmer a stand-by which he so urgently needs in his present position, which would help him to increase tillage, which would give him a fair working price and enable him to pay a fair wage for labour. Recent events should have taught the Government that the beet growers are not satisfied that these foreign combines should be allowed to take up such a high and mighty attitude, that even if the Minister for Agriculture desires to meet them they should reply that they have not time to do so to discuss the question with him. I would ask the Minister, therefore, not to take up the attitude that this question cannot be settled. Like the question that was discussed in the House yesterday it is a big national problem. It has got to be settled, and the country demands that it ought to be settled. If the Minister is not now prepared to indicate to the House what steps he is going to take to settle the question, and what legislation he proposes to introduce, then I say that he is a failure, that his beet sugar subsidy is a failure, and that he has shown himself incapable of dealing, at a critical point in its career, with a problem affecting the very existence of what the Government, in their electioneering pamphlets, described as a "flourishing industry." The industry is practically falling through at the present time. If the Minister is not able to take steps to put it on its feet again then I suggest that the sooner he makes room for somebody else who will do it, the better.

I think it is not very difficult to anticipate the general lines on which the Minister for Agriculture will go in his reply. I have no doubt he will tell us that, on general principles, he is altogether opposed to interfering in matters of this kind, that the law of supply and demand should be allowed to operate, that the ordinary bargaining should be allowed to take place and that he should not interfere, at all events, until the very last moment. When he is driven from that, when we point out that he is bound to interfere seeing that there is a large sum of public money going to this factory, he will tell us that he is precluded from interfering, that his hands are tied. He will tell us that he made a bargain; he will even admit that it was a bad bargain but he will try to throw the onus of that bargain on us. We may have an opportunity of dealing with some of the points he will raise in that connection later.

Mr. Hogan

I think I should be allowed to make my own speech.

I do not usually have the opportunity of following the Minister and I am trying to anticipate him. He can make his own speech afterwards but we are going to anticipate him this time. He generally closes the debate.

Mr. Hogan

I was about to speak when you stood up.

In that case, my anticipation will still be in order. The Minister is going to throw the blame for that bad bargain on us, but I will deal with that point later. He will say, "We have made this bargain. We are bound honourably by it. The credit of the country is involved in our keeping strictly to it." As far as that point is concerned, I am prepared to agree with him. I approached this question by putting myself, as far as I could, in the position of a member of the Ministry who had made this bad bargain. I asked myself what would be my duty if I were in a position like that.

The Minister looked across a moment ago and challenged Deputy Derrig as to what he would do in these circumstances. There is one thing he should do anyhow—that is, to see that there was fair play. He should not stand aside and see his own people suffer when unfair action was taken by the other party. I take it that that would be his duty—to see that there was fair play. Is it acting unfairly towards this foreign company to see that your own people get fair play? I say it is not. The Minister can act in such a way that his own people will get fair play without in any way dishonouring any pact, bargain or contract he has entered into. What has been the conduct of the Ministry with respect to these foreign capitalists? Have they been unfair to them? They made a very generous bargain with them at the start. The Minister admits that when he says that it was a bad bargain.

Mr. Hogan

I never said it was a bad bargain. I have always said that we made an excellent bargain.

What then was the point about petrol being in the air? What was the Minister's point then in saying he would have done things differently if these particular circumstances had not been present?

Mr. Hogan

I said we made an excellent bargain in spite of the wrecking tactics of the Deputy and his friends.

We have it at last that the Minister does not think that he made a bad bargain. He thinks he made a good bargain—a bargain which, at the present time, is driving the beet growers from the growing of beet into the growing of corn, and that, after they had prepared for the beet crop. In these circumstances, they are going into the growing of cereals which is bound to be unprofitable. That is the "good bargain" he has made. Under these circumstances, he is not prepared to go to the assistance of his own people. I thought that his case was that it was a bad bargain, and that the responsibility for his having to make that bargain was being placed upon us. Now, it appears that he has not made a bad bargain and, therefore, two of his previous arguments go immediately overboard. One of these was that we were responsible for this bad bargain, and secondly, that there was no necessity to go to the assistance of his own people at all. The bargain was a good one for the country, and a good one for everybody!

The Government has been more than generous with the foreign capitalists involved. They kept their contract with them in giving a subsidy up to 10,000 tons. After two years, they went beyond that and gave them a remission of duty over 10,000 tons, which involved a sum of something like £11 13s. 4d. a ton. Their generosity in the matter has been such that whereas the sum of £922,745 was paid in cash by way of subsidy, in remission of duty there was a total of £1,018,582. The total sum given either directly by cash subsidy or by remission of duty has altogether amounted to £1,945,000, working out at an average of about £400,000 a year. Their generosity was such that if the price of 38/- were accepted by the beet growers for this year and if the quantity of beet and the sugar content remained the same as last year, the subsidy would give them all the beet for nothing and £90,000 as well. Their generosity has been such that, as Deputies have pointed out, they have been enabled to pay off the capital invested in the enterprise to the extent of over £200,000. Deputy Davin said it was £220,000. It is certainly over £200,000.

I gave the figure in the balance sheet.

At that rate, they would eventually have the capital paid off at the end of the period of the contract. They have put £65,000 to reserve and they have paid something like £12,000 in directors' fees, not counting undisclosed fees for special services. They paid 10 per cent. dividend for the first year and 15 per cent. for succeeding years. If that is not generosity on the part of the Government towards these foreign capitalists I do not know what generosity is. The Government does not even say to these people: "We have been generous with you. We have kept our contract with you. You are trying unfairly, on account of having this particular grip, to take advantage of our people, but we are not going to let you do it. We are going to stand by our people and see that they get fair play."

Though the Minister denies it, I believe that he could have arranged machinery for the settling of prices on the basis of costs at the very beginning. He could have made an arrangement then that would have safeguarded the farmers in the years subsequent to the first three. That has not been done. At least, he could say now to the company: "We have been generous with you. You are asking our people to grow beet at a price that is uneconomic. That price gives you an unfair profit, and, because the circumstances are such, we are going to help our own people in their fight against you and support any organisation that they set up to defend their interests against you. Any subsidies that we were going to give you or remissions to encourage beet growing, we will use, and more money as well, in order to see that those who have had to devote their lands to other crops will be put in a position to fight you and, if necessary, to see that you get no subsidy." That is what I would imagine would be the attitude of a Government that was generous and who found that generosity was met on the part of these capitalists with unfair treatment of the Government's own nationals. That is what the people expect—the people of the country as a whole. Public money is going into this enterprise for a certain purpose—to bring about a situation in which beet would be grown for the manufacture of sugar hitherto imported into the country and enable us to be self-supporting to that extent.

They gave that money willingly, although they thought it was a very substantial sum indeed, in the hope that at the end of the period there would be established here a flourishing sugar manufacturing industry supplying, or going very nearly to supplying, all our needs in sugar. The Minister is going to put all that on one side. He is going to have all his efforts in that direction set at naught. I believe the Minister is not doing what the Minister should do to defend his own people in these particular circumstances. During the recent election campaign I was down in Kildare and neighbourhood and I met a number of people who put very definitely to me the point of view that the Government was not giving the assistance that they expected to get and that they were entitled to get, that they were being unfairly treated by a company that was generously treated by the Government.

The Deputy did not ask a question about it.

We did try to get this beet Estimate considered very early.

I must say that I did not hear of it.

The records will show that there was an effort on the part of our members to get this Estimate brought forward early, and immediately it was said that it was on account of political tactics or something of that sort.

Is it not a fact that the Minister for Agriculture appealed to members of the House to refrain from discussing this matter, because, as he said, it was likely to prejudice the negotiations then going on?

Mr. Hogan

I did not appeal. I said I would not discuss the matter.

At any rate, there is no point in the President's remark. It is altogether beside the point, just as was the President's remark in discussing the question of relief of rates on agricultural land when he talked about prosperous farmers on these benches, the conclusion being that there was no necessity for any relief at all.

Not at all.

To get back to this particular matter, we want to see the powers that are here to defend our own people exercised. If there is a portion of the subsidy not paid as a result of the beet not being supplied, we think it is only fair that the farmers who have been compelled to sow other crops in place of beet should not suffer a loss by that, and portion of that subsidy should be devoted to seeing that they do not suffer a loss. In that way the Minister will be standing by his own people, and putting them in a position to fight this company, which has taken an unfair advantage of them. The figures show that the Government has been generous, and there is no need whatever to have any compunction at all; no member need have any compunction in standing up for our own people under the circumstances, or have any fear whatever that he is acting somehow unfairly or dishonourably in regard to the bargain made.

I would like to deal with the point which I said I would leave over earlier, namely, the conditions under which the bargain was made. The Minister for Agriculture has frequently excused himself on the ground that it was made at a time when there was great risk in investing capital in the Free State. This is actually what he said:—

They had to go to countries where factories were already in operation and induce foreigners to invest £400,000 in a factory in this country at a time when the Civil War was barely over and when the houses and buildings that had been destroyed then were not yet rebuilt. Now, in the year, 1931, we are blamed on several counts by political opponents for failing to do this, that and the other. What were they doing in 1924 and 1925? It was announced in that year that they would refuse to pay the first National Loan.

Mr. Hogan

Is that denied?

I am going to deal with it in a moment. As a matter of fact, the agreement with Messrs. Lippens was signed on October 1st, 1925, two and a half years after the termination of the civil war, the civil war which the Minister himself said he began, the civil war which was begun by the attack on the Four Courts and the breaking of a political pact.

Now! This is altogether outside the Estimate.

If the Minister is going, as he obviously is going, to defend himself we have a perfect right to meet his case.

We were not to use force at all.

The law does not matter where they are concerned. They are the law.

Let anybody who likes come in and take up your house.

Mr. Hogan

We are to have another debate on the civil war.

However, the Free State Government had already, at that time, raised £10,000,000 in the First National Loan at 5 per cent. nominal. In the same year it had raised £926,000 in Savings Certificates. In 1924-25 it raised approximately a quarter of a million in Savings Certificates, and in 1925-26 another £600,000. In view of these facts it is obvious that the Minister for Agriculture would have no difficulty if he wanted to plead that the credit of the State was sound, in finding arguments to present to Mr. Lippens or anybody else in support of that.

He said in Athy he told him he was a liar.

At any rate, what I want to point out is that the Minister, if he tries to excuse himself on the basis of a bad bargain—now he has gone away from that—the bad bargain was his own making. He need not have made a bad bargain. If he were anxious to look ahead and to safeguard the interests of the Irish farmer he could have done it. He has gone away from that, but at any rate, whether the bargain was a good one or was a bad one, he has one duty at the present time, and that is to see that his people do not suffer as a result of any bargain made when it is in his power to protect them by supporting them in the direction we have indicated—supporting them against unfair treatment by foreign capitalists.

The only suggestion which Deputy de Valera has made is that the Minister should stand by his own people, and the one weapon he suggested the Minister should use is the weapon of the subsidy, that the subsidy should be retained. Is that not what he suggested? Is there any other suggestion? In his speech, I did not hear of any other. I was hoping that he could suggest some other machinery whereby this matter could be dealt with. No Deputy in the House is more closely concerned with this question than I am. I was the chairman of the meeting at which the Beet Growers' Association was launched. It was called together through our instrumentality. I presided at that meeting, and the Association was launched. Therefore, nobody has a closer or more personal concern in the success of the Beet Growers' Association, from the growers' point of view, than I have. In this case, one has to make a choice between one's friends and national credit and national honour. I want at the outset to say that, in my opinion, the directors of the factory, the owners of the factory, Messrs, Lippens, have deliberately set out to smash the Growers' Association. I remember at the opening of that factory having a conversation with Mr. Maurice Lippens, and I remember his saying to me that any dispute or any misunderstanding between the growers and themselves would be a matter for amicable arrangement. He left no doubt in my mind about that.

I dare say at the time that was their frame of mind, but they have gone a long way away from that now. He was at that time either deliberately trying to mislead me, who happened to be connected with the growers, or he has since changed his mind and gone away from the understanding he had with the growers. The Company at that time gave every encouragement to the Beet Growers' Association to come to their assistance. At that time I got the impression that there was no doubt about it that this agreement would have the very sympathetic support and co-operation of the Company. I believe that up to two years ago that was their attitude. But two years ago, when this 46/- a ton arrangement was arrived at with the growers, they had it in their minds to break that arrangement. That was so two years ago. They wanted to break that arrangement with the growers. The fact of delaying negotiations up to the time when it was dangerous to risk disagreement would lead me to believe that even at that time their minds were running in a certain direction. The negotiations were delayed in 1929 to a very late date indeed, almost until the time when the crops should be sown.

The fact that a company of their experience did deliberately delay negotiations about a crop that was vital to the life of the factory would lead me to believe that they were sparring for position and that they wanted to get the growers into a certain position where their backs would be to the wall. The agreement was come to that year, but they went a step further this year and they deliberately stood out to break the Beet Growers' Association. The matter was not so much a question of sugar beet economics as a deliberate and sweeping attempt to break the Association. I have not examined the figures, but the figures have been examined by a competent independent authority who had no bias in the matter and I think the Minister will admit it, that the proper price they could economically pay for the beet would be about 41/- a ton.

And allowing £40,000 for depreciation.

All the figures that were submitted, even the figures submitted by the factory, would show that the growers should be paid at least 41/- per ton.

What dividend would that give them?

I am not going to answer questions like that off the reel.

It would give them a dividend of 15 per cent.

On their own figures they could have paid the price of 41/- per ton. Therefore, it was not from the point of view of economics that they decided to fight the growers on the 38/- per ton basis. That fight was from the point of view of the company to break the Association. I will instance some arguments in support of that. At the time the company were concentrating on the small grower wherever they could get him. They were making advances with regard to seeds, they were making advances with regard to manures and, in fact, they were advancing cash to them. They wanted at the time to get at a certain section of the small growers of this country whose economic position was such that they wanted to catch hold of them as slaves to the factory. They hoped that they would get a certain number of small growers so driven by the economic position and the economic pressure in which they were that they would have them as slaves to the factory. I believe that was the intention.

The Congo policy.

"Congo" perhaps would be a good description of their policy.

What does the Deputy know about the Congo?

I am not going to go into the figures mentioned by Deputy Davin and Deputy Derrig. These figures have been pretty well stated by the Association. I will go so far as this, that while I am not in a position to criticise the figures, I do say that the policy of the Company was deliberately framed to smash the Association, and that it was a vindictive policy. I will leave the criticism of the figures to other people. That was the word to use about the Company's attitude, "vindictive," and their attitude has been like that for over twelve months. Certain indications were given as to that. They wanted to get rid of the independent grower, who was in a position to buy his own seeds and to buy his own manures, and do without any cash advances from them. They wanted to break the arrangement altogether with the Growers' Association, and to get on to what Deputy Davin has described as the Congo system.

Having said that, one has to ask what is the suggestion towards a solution. The only means that Deputy de Valera suggests is that we should break a national bargain where the credit of this State is at stake, to break that bargain, and to use that even though we hamper this State for all future development, and drag it to its knees. The suggestion is to do that—to put it in the position that no man in this country or outside this country would ever after invest 10d. on the strength of a bargain made with this State. That is the only alternative Deputy de Valera suggests. I do not mind the other suggestions, but I do mind the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition. That is the only suggestion he has to offer, that we should break the credit of this State for all time.

It is not. What is the beet growers' alternative? Deputy Gorey knows it.

I am talking about Deputy de Valera's alternative.

He did not propose this amendment.

That does not matter. We are not dealing so much with the amendment as with the general question.

Civil war does not come into it at all in any way; it did not come into the amendment.

Deputy de Valera said "Repudiate the subsidy" is what the people expected. The people do not expect it. The people, I know, are desperate and would take advantage of anything. The people do not expect the Government to repudiate the subsidy. They have been educated by the Deputy and his friends to expect it.

Is Deputy Gorey speaking on behalf of the beet growers?

I am not. I am speaking as a member of this House, and I am speaking as one who has more real sympathy with the beet growers than Deputy MacEntee or his Party have.

Have you any interest in it?

Better let Deputy Gorey speak.

I have, and several interests in it—more than Deputy MacEntee has.

How many acres of beet has Deputy Gorey grown?

I never had an acre of it. I never tried to gamble on it, anyway.

You were elected on it. "Vote for Gorey and the Beet Factory."

Is Deputy Gorey supporting the proposal?

I am going to make my own speech in my own way.

Just as the Deputy pays his subscriptions to the court in his own way.

The Deputy should not be interrupted.

Well, anyway, I am going to make my own speech in my own way, and I am not going to be interrupted by a Deputy of the type of Deputy Derrig, Deputy MacEntee or Deputy Davin, either. I stand for one definite policy, no matter what friendships I may break or disappointments I may cause to people who have stuck by me heretofore through thick and thin in various matters. In this connection I have no regard for political or family relations. I do not grow beet and I never did grow beet. I am at the moment in the position of making a choice between my friends, on the one side, and national honour on the other. In making that choice I have no doubt that some people will find me disappointing. I have decided, at any rate, that I will take my stand on the side of national honour and national credit.

The poacher turned gamekeeper!

There is a lot of talk about hares and poachers. As I said last night, they were good hares anyway, and not mumblers like Deputy MacEntee.

Deputy MacEntee ought to endeavour to restrain himself some time.

How could he—a cur like that?

That is a most improper expression, and Deputy Gorey should not have used it.

Well, I withdraw it.

Deputy Gorey must be allowed to speak, and Deputy MacEntee must refrain from the practice of continually interrupting every other member of the House.

That is a most unjustifiable observation on your part.

Deputy Gorey will resume his speech.

We know what you are getting at.

There is one thing to which I have to refer. It is, perhaps, a rather delicate thing to mention. The fact is that the real damage is done by people who profess to have the interests of the growers at heart, and who, at times, indulge in ill-considered interference, nominally on behalf of the growers. It is, perhaps, a delicate matter to mention, but I refer to it deliberately. That interference has done more to prolong the dispute between the growers and the factory than has anything else. Had that interference not taken place, I am quite certain the beet would have been grown this year.

By black-legs.

No. A settlement would have been arrived at were it not for this interference on the part of people in high positions who were, perhaps, well-meaning. I think Deputies will know to whom I am referring. There was more than one person concerned; there were several who did a personal canvass.

What does the Deputy mean?

To whom is the Deputy referring?

Deputies must not be following the matter very closely when they ask that question. Possibly, politics was the only thing that troubled them at the time. What I mean is that the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin wrote a certain letter to the paper and then there were certain people in the country, Father Killian and others, great personal friends of mine, who interfered both privately and in the public Press. That interference, the coming into the arena of these people, did more to prevent a settlement than anything I could imagine. It strengthened the backs of the directors. It set their feet more firmly on the road they intended to travel. In my opinion they would never have travelled on that road were it not that they got an indication of support. I am glad that support was not subsequently forthcoming. Deputies were anxious for me to mention names. They really knew the facts all along, but they wanted someone with the courage to come into the open. It is a delicate matter to refer to, but I refer to it because I believe it is true. No matter how well meaning these people may have been, it might be better if they had not intervened. In my opinion their best judgment was not exercised when they decided to come into this business. I will not say whether they came into it on behalf of the beet growers or on behalf of the factory, but certainly the best interests were not served by their coming in.

The directors deliberately and vindictively embarked on a certain road. They were anxious to travel in a certain direction and the support they got from those who then intervened did more to put them definitely on that road than anything else I could imagine. The interference indicated that there would be a split within the ranks of the growers. I do not know what the attitude of the Association, the big and the small growers, has been. It has been said they were selfish and wanted to keep all the acreage among their members and they did not want to let in anybody from outside. There may be some truth in that, but whether or not it is true, it is no credit to the farmers of the country that some, at least, were influenced to go outside the Association, to break away from it, and grow beet. That is no credit to them and my only regret is that the law protects them.

I have expressed the point of view from these benches. Amongst the Deputies on these benches there is no sympathy with the factory or with the directors—none in the world. It is a matter of deciding whether one should be influenced by personal friendships and personal interests—by the chance of a vote at the coming elections—or whether one should do one's duty by the State and be influenced by what is due to national honour and self-respect. I will be guided by my duty to the State and by my feeling of what is due to national honour and self-respect.

In view of the fact that there is a lack of agreement between the growers and the factory, will the Minister consider the desirability of withdrawing this Estimate until such time as there is agreement established? We have had for the last two hours a really futile discussion. The people of the country are taxed to subsidise those in the beet-growing area, and also the factory. I suggest the Minister should withdraw the Estimate until there is agreement.

That is what the Minister is asked to do.

Deputy de Valera said that this was a bad bargain. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that that statement has been made by the Deputy, not only in relation to this bargain, but in relation to every bargain that has ever been made by this Government, or by any other Government acting for this country. He tells the Government that we should stand by our own; he said we are on trial. It is perfectly clear to me that his attitude on this matter is not intended either to help the factory or the growers or any of the people concerned, but rather to wreck the agreement. The Deputy made a purely wrecking speech. That is nothing new to him.

What agreement did the Deputy try to wreck?

Mr. Hogan

If Deputy Aiken wishes to speak he should get up and speak. He should not interrupt me.

What agreement does the Minister mean Deputy de Valera tried to wreck? Is it the agreement with the growers that they should get 38/- a ton?

Mr. Hogan

I will ask the Deputy to conduct himself. If he has anything to say he should say it afterwards, and he will be answered in due course. The interruptions he is making, speaking behind his hand, are no good.

I am asking a question and the Minister should answer it.

Mr. Hogan

Deputy de Valera's attitude did not surprise me in the least. His consistent attitude with regard to any enterprise established in this country, either for the benefit of the farmers or any other class in the community, has been to wreck it purely for political purposes. His speech this evening was a speech delivered deliberately, not in the interests of the farmers or the growers, or in the interests of anybody else making money out of the factory, but definitely for the purpose he has always had in mind, and that is to wreck it, in order to gain whatever political advantage he might gain through destruction and chaos.

That is a lie.

Mr. Hogan

Deputies must remember that I have often told them that if they attempt to hit they are going to get hit back. It is a bad sign on the part of Deputies to squeal on the first indication of any opposition. We have as much right here as Deputies on the Opposition Benches I am speaking here as a member of the Government of this country, and I am perfectly certain that whatever I have to say I will say it despite any interruptions over there. The sooner Deputies on the opposite side drop this alleged technique of trying to prevent by silly interruption another point of view being expressed the better for them. We are told it is a bad bargain. It has been said here that I stated it was a bad bargain. I never said at any time that it was a bad bargain. I have always stated, and I state now, that we made an excellent bargain, and I want any evidence from any member of the House who declares that we have made a bad bargain.

[An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.]

We are in the position that we can compare the bargain we made with the bargain made in other countries. That gives us a line. In 1924 we made a bargain with foreigners. It is admitted that we had to make a bargain with foreigners. It is admitted that nobody in England or this country knew anything about the production of sugar from beet. The beet sugar industry was in the hands of Continental people. We arranged for the establishment of a factory here with the aid of a subsidy. All the factories in England have the help of a subsidy. How does our subsidy compare with the English one? Will anyone deny that our subsidy for the ten years' period is smaller than the English subsidy? The fact is that for the ten years' period the subsidy which the taxpayers of this country are asked to pay is something like £400,000 less than the subsidy to a factory of the same size producing the same amount of sugar in England.

That statement has been contradicted by the Beet Growers' Association.

Cannot the Minister be allowed to make his statement?

Mr. Hogan

I stated that three weeks ago in public. I have stated it often. Does the Deputy contradict it?

I say it has been contradicted.

Mr. Hogan

Deputies opposite are very apt in getting figures from publications and compiling statistics. All these figures and statistics are available. The subsidy figures for the English factories are available. The Deputy obviously has them. He quoted in his speech from documents which contained these figures. I presume he looked at them and compared them and made the necessary calculations, or did he omit that portion? What is his position?

I do not know whether the Minister is including the indirect subsidy in the figures.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy is extremely innocent. Of course I am including the indirect subsidy. It is exactly the same protection as the direct subsidy. A customs duty is exactly as much protection to home grown sugar as a direct subsidy. Deputies know that very well. The Deputy knows well that the basis of the English subsidy and the basis of the Irish subsidy are different. Does he deny my statement that, taking the total subsidy which the English factories get and which our Irish factory gets, our subsidy is actually smaller over the ten years' period?

Per cwt. of sugar produced.

Mr. Hogan

Our subsidy per cwt. of sugar produced is smaller than the English subsidy over the ten years. Taking the present term, it is £400,000 smaller over the ten years. I want to put this to Deputies. Every possible weakness that could be found in the bargain which we made has been pursued by the Party opposite, and every possible advantage that they could get politically out of it they have taken, quite irresponsibly. Do Deputies consider that they would not take this advantage if it were there? I gave these figures weeks ago in the House, and they have never been contradicted. Deputies opposite, in the publications which they have been quoting from, have these figures, and they have never given them to the House. The fact of the matter is that they cannot be contradicted. In 1924, one year after the Civil War, we did make a bargain with this Company which was a better bargain from the point of view of the taxpayer, whose interests we were concerned with, than the English bargain. Deputy de Valera does the usual pettifogging quibble. He is a good hand at that. That is his particular line of——

He played into your hands.

Mr. Hogan

Do not mind whether he played into my hands or not.

He led you away from the issue.

Mr. Hogan

The question is, am I stating the truth? We have suffered a lot of foolishness in silence for a long time. Here is an opportunity for exploding all these myths. They have been put up here even to-day, and surely I am entitled to deal with them.

He played into your hands on this.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy went further. He stated that I excused the bargain on the grounds that at the time the country was immediately after a Civil War, and that a thoroughly irresponsible wrecking Party was in existence, whose avowed policy was to break up the State. He said that that was my excuse for the bad bargain. I never excused the bargain. I say we made a first-class bargain, and I stand over every line of it. I say that we made a good bargain, in spite of the fact that when we were entering into negotiations the Civil War was barely over, and all the marks of the Civil War were all over the country, and in the very year that we entered into the negotiations the Party opposite officially declared, and got it into all their papers, that they would repudiate the First National Loan.

That is untrue.

Mr. Hogan

Deputy Lemass volunteered the statement at some crossroads in Kildare that that was a lie. Does he say that now?

Yes, of course. We say that no member of the Fianna Fáil Party ever declared it to be the policy of the Party to repudiate the National Loan.

Mr. Hogan

Mark the quibble. There was no Fianna Fáil Party in 1924— they were all one.

No present member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Hogan

There was no Fianna Fáil Party then, but there was a Sinn Fein Party, of which Deputy de Valera was the leader. Deputy Lemass held high office in it, warlike office; Deputy Aiken was a combination of soldier and statesman at the time. Deputy Ryan was in that Party, a leading light, and the agricultural expert of the Party.

I was not a leading light at all.

Mr. Hogan

I hope he was in sympathy with it at the time. I do not know whether Deputy Derrig was there, but all the present leaders were there in force. The Sinn Fein Party, led by Deputy de Valera, in the year 1924 officially announced as their policy the repudiation of the National Loan. Is that the truth?

That is not true. Let the Minister prove his statement that the Sinn Fein Party officially issued that statement.

Mr. Hogan

Yes. Take Deputy Lemass's advice and leave that point alone. On May 20th, 1924, the following note appeared starred in all the papers addressed to the official Sinn Fein candidate in Limerick:—"Does he, like his leaders, repudiate the National Loan and all the debts contracted by the National Government?" Answer: "Certainly." Sinn Fein, of which Deputy MacEntee was—I am sure he will not contradict this—a leading light——

Not at all.

Mr. Hogan

"Sinn Fein repudiates this and all such attempts by an usurping authority in subservience to British interests"—that is us—"to place the nation's resources in pawn to capitalists and foreigners."

That statement, according to the Minister, was issued by a candidate down in Limerick. I was not in the Limerick constituency, and I would not go there, and Deputy de Valera was in prison at the time and had no responsibility for that.

Mr. Hogan

It is a pitiful way out of it.

It is quite true.

Mr. Hogan

Anyway we took the line that Sir M. Lippens and the other foreigners were agreed that the Sinn Fein Party would wreck it if they were able, but we told them they were not able. I did tell that gentleman he was a liar, and I can say that now. Times were different in 1924, when we were endeavouring to do something for the country under tremendous difficulties. It is all very fine for people to criticise now, but go back to 1924 when the conditions——

Give up the sob stuff.

Mr. Hogan

Kindly shut up.

Perhaps the Minister will move to report progress.

Mr. Hogan

Yes.

It seems to be a clearly pursued policy in this House to prevent a Minister from making a speech at all.

That is a lie.

That is untrue.

If the Deputies will open any copy of the Official Debates——

I invite the Ceann Comhairle to read them when a Minister is interrupting.

Let him turn up the French papers, and expose himself as a Party hack.

You are not in Belfast now.

What has this to do with the price of beet?

I understand that the relevancy of this to the price of beet is that the question of the contract was introduced.

That should have struck you before.

Seeing that the making of the contract was introduced, surely the making of the contract would appear to be relevant for the Minister too.

The Ceann Comhairle says the last word for Cumann na nGaedheal.

If Deputies will examine the Official Debates they will find that when a Minister speaks on any controversial subject, he never speaks without interruption.

Not only that but the Minister for Industry and Commerce continuously interrupted Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Hogan

I welcome interruptions and I will give a little more than I get to any Deputy on the opposite side. I move to report progress.

The Minister has a fertile imagination.

The Minister is always blowing his own big trumpet.

God help the country between the two of you.

The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again on Wednesday.
Top
Share