Vol. 47 No. 17
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £162,500 chun íochta an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun Congnamh Airgid d'íoc ar scór Síúicre 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, 1934, for payment of Subsidy in respect of Beet Sugar (No. 37 of 1925).
Does the same ruling apply to this? Are we allowed here to discuss the use that the Beet Sugar Factory has made of the subsidy it got during the last few years? The reason I ask that question is that I pursued a certain investigation when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I think I was informed by the Chairman of that Committee that this was a matter which should properly be raised on the Estimates here. I shall be glad to know now if we can discuss the use to which the Beet Sugar Factory has put the subsidy?
There is an Act of Parliament setting up the Beet Sugar Factory, is there not?
And providing the subsidy, I think.
This is quite different. The Vote in this case is a Vote for a variable amount.
Has the Minister any control over the method or manner in which the subsidy is disposed of?
I do not think so.
Nor even over the sugar content of the beet.
If he has not, clearly we cannot discuss it.
I thought it was desirable to raise the question here. Of course the Minister will be better able to inform the Chair as to what measure of control he has. If it is not a matter for discussion at the Committee of Public Accounts, and according to the Chairman of that body it ought to be raised on the Estimates here, it ought to be decided somewhere, somehow, sometime, where it may be discussed.
We can discuss the policy of the Department.
All I have to say is that the policy of the Department in giving the beet sugar factory beet for nothing out of public money is, to my mind, exceedingly imprudent. I am aware that a defence has been raised, and will probably be raised by Deputy McGilligan to-day, and by his colleague, Deputy Hogan, if he were here, that the terms offered to the beet sugar factories in this country were no better than the terms offered to similar enterprises in Great Britain. That is no answer. The fact is that the subsidy which the beet sugar factories have been getting during the past eight or ten years has resulted in their having their sugar for nothing, and being in a position to sell it and to have the entire sale price as gross profit. I have no doubt whatever that that has resulted in material advantage to the farmers in the neighbourhood of Carlow, but I very much doubt if it has not had a very grave effect upon the farmers in other parts of the country, who have been obliged to foot the bill in the long run. Furthermore, I am not at all satisfied that, considering the measure of subsidy which this factory is getting, they are giving farmers anything like a fair price for their beet. The Minister will remember that there was an acrimonious dispute about two years ago on this very question, and the end of it was, I think, that the factory succeeded in bringing down the price of beet from 42/- to 37/-. I doubt very much if the figure of 37/- as a basic rate is fair, considering the dimensions of the subsidy this factory is getting. I understand—and here again I must ask the Chair to rule— that it has been popularly reported, and I think Ministers have stated in public, that it was their intention to set up other beet sugar factories in different parts of the country. Is it permissible to discuss that in the light of our knowledge of the subsidy which we are at present discussing?
I take it that that would involve legislation. If so it cannot be discussed.
The question is whether if another beet factory was to be established it would require fresh legislation, or whether it could be done under the present Act.
If it would require fresh legislation it cannot now be discussed.
It would require fresh assistance, and fresh legislation would be necessary.
If the existing statute only gives power to give a subsidy to one factory, then I am not free to pursue that line of argument. I think, considering the amount of subsidy annually granted to the beet sugar factory, the attitude of the factory to the farmers who supply the beet is extremely stingy, bearing in mind the subsidy they get which enables them to have the sugar manufactured and refined and actually put into bags for nothing, and being in the position to sell the sugar at the price ruling in the market, and taking the entire proceeds of the sale as gross profits.
Before another year has passed the Minister should insist upon a close examination of that system being made, with a view to ascertaining whether the farmers are getting a fair share of whatever benefits accrue as a result of the setting up of that factory there. For his information I can tell the Minister that if he looks at a report of the Public Accounts Committee for last year, he will there find a memorandum prepared in his own Department, setting out how the subsidy has worked, and what it means to the factory every year. If he studies that report I think he will be inclined to agree with me that the promoters of the beet sugar factory are getting a great deal more than either the consumers or the producers of beet in this country.
I only want to say a few words in order to endeavour to get from the Minister for Agriculture an idea of what the future policy of the Government in regard to beet sugar in this country will be. I do not intend to infringe upon the rulings given by the Chair a few moments ago, that, in as far as it required further legislation for State grants, this matter could not be discussed. But it does not follow that the beet sugar industry cannot be developed in this country without further grants. I would like a definite statement from the Minister as to whether he considers that in the setting up of any factory for the production of sugar out of beet in any part of the country, it will be necessary to give State assistance. I would also ask whether the Minister would be in a position to say what State assistance would be considered necessary if any is required. I shall assume, for the moment, that no State assistance will be required, and I ask the Minister, on that assumption, in what part of the country it is his intention to set up the new beet factories that he has already made reference to. The Minister is aware of the fact that in my constituency of South Mayo—and it is not unique in this respect—there is a very great desire to have a beet factory set up. If it can be done economically, and without tremendous State expenditure, and especially if it can be done without any State expenditure, then it would undoubtedly be of the very greatest assistance to the farmers, and especially to the small farmers, who make up, I may say, 99.5 per cent. of the agricultural inhabitants of Mayo. I am sure that the natural sympathies by birth of Deputy Dillon for his native Mayo are quite as strong as his sympathy by adoption is for County Donegal.
I am lost in admiration of the Deputy's dexterity in putting his case.
I have learned from the Deputy. There is this advantage about beet growing. It is a form of agriculture that gives more employment than any other. Other crops, such as corn crops, give practically no employment. One man and a pair of horses can sow a considerable acreage of corn, and corn is reaped by the same process. There is no employment given in growing grain except to one man for many acres, and a few casual labourers for stooking and threshing. Beet is a different crop. It requires attention continuously. The land must be prepared for it, cleaned especially, and kept very clean throughout the whole course of the year. Again the pulling of the beet crop is a very long job, and gives a considerable amount of employment. It does not mean merely casual employment for a week or two. It gives steady work for individuals all through the year. Therefore the beet crop, very much more than any other crop grown in this country, gives employment, and for that reason sugar beet is from the point of view of employment the most important crop that could be grown in the country. Potatoes and turnips give a great deal more employment than the growing of grain, but beet sugar, especially, gives more employment than any other form of agriculture and for that reason I would like very much to know if the Minister can tell us if there is any chance of the beet factory going to be put up in the particular part of Mayo in which I am interested.
I would like to make a few remarks about this whole matter which may have some repercussion on future policy in relation to the functions of other factories in this country. Many factories have been promised. I do not know whether it is wheat, beet or peat that the Government is going to take its stand upon. They are all rather a shaky foundation for anyone to build future industries of his country upon, but they are selected, and selected mainly by the Minister for Agriculture. I would like the Minister to answer one question, that is, as to whether he has the slightest hope that there is going to be a beet factory established in this country without some form of Government assistance. The Act referred to in this debate was 37 of 1925, under the first section of which this money was granted. That Act was passed by this House in the belief that the inauguration of the sugar beet industry in this country was going to lead to two things, one a permanent matter, namely, that there was going to be an extension of winter tillage in the country and the second was the hope that by degrees as people in the country got used to this crop the necessity for a subsidy would disappear or, at any rate, the necessity for so large a subsidy would disappear. Part of that was a hope. Part of that was a certainty. In fact, the subsidy was made so high, because of the disturbed condition of the country at the time when this scheme was inaugurated, that it was impossible to get people to have any confidence in this country at that time or, at any rate, to have as much confidence as would be evidenced by the investment of big amounts of their money except under conditions that would amount to making the return on their money almost a gilt-edged security. If they did not get that gilt-edged security they had to be granted such subsidies as would enable them, in a very short time indeed, to recover the capital they had sunk in the company. Those being the conditions in the year 1925, this outside company, being very expert in this particular product and in the manufacture and marketing of sugar manufactured from beet, were asked to come in here, and they agreed to do so under certain conditions. One of the things attempted at the time was to get some evidence that the people here had confidence in the project themselves by getting the nationals of this country to subscribe to it and, accordingly, an attempt was made to get the people of this country to put their money into it. I think that the total amount secured from the people of this country was less than £10,000. That was all that was subscribed by the people of this country, although, at that time, this investment could be represented as yielding, at the minimum, 10 per cent. on the amount invested. It must be borne in mind also that it could be evidenced at that time that this country was suited to the growing of sugar beet, and that, at least on demonstration plots, the sugar content of the beet grown here was equal, on the average, to that of the beet grown in England and even generally, excepting for bad seasons, of a higher sugar content. Again, building on the fact that the experiment had been tried in England and had failed there, we were enabled to get certain alleviations of the terms of this foreign company, and to get a scheme which, from the point of view of the subsidy paid, was a better proposition than any of the English schemes; and yet it was a very big proposition for this country and one which has laid a very heavy burden on the people of this country. It was a scheme which, in retrospect, cannot be said to have been an economic proposition and it arises here in the light of the fact that the Government had made up their minds that the getting of sugar from beet grown in this country is an economic proposition. By the term "economic proposition" I mean one which is regarded as being a paying or even a self-supporting proposition. I know that that aspect of any proposition does not often enter into the mind of the present Minister for Agriculture. All he thinks about is a licence or a subsidy, and almost anything can be made to appear good under these circumstances. But looking at it from the angle of prices paid here, of productivity, extra wealth, and of the burdens placed on the consumer, I should like to have the view of the Minister for Agriculture as to whether he sees the slightest hope of this proposition ever becoming an economic one in the sense in which I have used the word.
At the back of this experiment was the idea that it would inaugurate an extension of winter tillage in the country. I do not know whether the Minister has examined the beet areas in this country or whether any more precise information on the subject has been got than was in the possession of this House before. If the Minister has not got any more information than was available at that time I think he will have to admit that there has been no greater extension of the area in tillage as a result of the production of beet, because what we know happened was that the people went out of one type of tillage and into the production of beet, but the amount of land, previously not tilled, and now put under beet, was very small indeed. It is doubtful if, over the whole country, there was any considerable amount of land better used by reason of this very big subsidy for this really uneconomic proposition.
These points should be taken into consideration by the Minister if he thinks of inaugurating more beet growing in the country—unless we are to regard this proposition as on a par with the promise of economies amounting to £2,000,000—just a paper business or a promise never meant to be implemented. In this connection also, if the Minister is going to say that he is going to have other factories in the country, would he at least tell us, if not the towns in the neighbourhood of which these factories are going to be erected, at least the counties in which it is proposed to erect them? The reason for this is that I think he will admit that there are certain counties that he must rule out for all time with regard to the growing of beet, and that if he is going to pursue this policy he must realise that there is a very narrow range to his activities. I think it would help Deputies, and possibly in the end it would help the Government, if there could be a definite statement made that there are certain areas comprised in certain counties which, under no consideration, could be looked upon as suitable areas for the growth of sugar beet. If a statement of that kind could be made authoritatively I think it would save Deputies a lot of annoyance, because every Deputy has to be up and doing when any project of this kind is mooted, His constituents are after him and he has got to be up and doing to see that his area has got proper consideration or, as in the case of some of these areas, improper consideration, because they could not possibly be used for that purpose.
It is quite easy now to pass criticism on this subsidy. I say "easy," looking at it from the angle from which people had to look at it in 1924. There was in the background of the consciousness of the people who inauguarated this, the idea of getting development going in some way. There was also the promise held out, but it was not fulfilled, of getting extra tillage. It can be now said that the scheme was wholly and entirely uneconomic and that the people have been made pay more than was reasonable for sugar. The results which were expected from this increased burden on the consumers of sugar, the expectations in the way of extra tillage, have hardly been fulfilled. There is very little in the balance to set against the loss to which the contributing population has been put.
There is a time coming in relation to this subsidy when a halt has got to be made and some review taken of the circumstances. That will come when this subsidy expires, and it will shortly expire. As we are a year or two ahead of that, however, if the Minister is thinking of going forward on some subsidy ground, there is enough information collected on the points criticised here to enable us to get from him a statement as to whether there is the slightest hope of getting sugar beet grown in this country free of a Government subsidy or other artificial aid.
I was asked by Deputy Dillon to examine closely the prices that growers are paid for their beet in the Carlow factory and make a comparison with the subsidy paid to the factory. The Deputy gave figures to show that the Carlow factory is making a large gross profit. I have gone into these figures carefully, but it does not make any great difference whether I examined them or not, because the Government are tied by the agreement our predecessors made in relation to the Carlow factory. There is not much use in speaking of profits or huge subsidies in relation to the Carlow factory, because there is no remedy for that until the time is up.
Deputy McGilligan said his Government made a very good agreement with the Carlow factory. That may be so, but he did not give all the facts, particularly when he mentioned that the subsidy here is less than is paid in Great Britain. I have the figures here relating to the subsidy paid last year. The subsidy paid in the case of British factories, both directly and indirectly, amounted to 12/- per ton, while in the Irish Free State the figure was 22/6. There might be some defence for that if we had the satisfaction of knowing that there was something passed on to the growers, but that is not so. The suppliers of the Carlow factory are not getting as much all round as the suppliers of the British factories. I agree that the sugar beet scheme was one of the good things done by the last Government. The growing of beet was encouraged and it was a good thing from the point of view of increasing the area under tillage. Deputy McGilligan now denounces this scheme and thinks that our experience of it ought to be sufficient to induce the Government to drop the growing of beet altogether. He said there was no increase of tillage.
We investigated this matter with a view to getting a report before considering the extension of beet growing. The Committee investigating the matter pointed out that the agricultural instructors were asked to call to a number of farms where beet was grown and find out whether tillage had increased. It is true that tillage has not increased on a number of these farms, but it has increased to a small extent in some. At any rate, tillage has not decreased. If tillage has held its own on these particular farms during the last six or seven years, it is something. During the period when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in power tillage decreased, and if sugar beet was sufficient to prevent a further decrease, something was gained; it is equivalent to an increase of tillage in that way. Beet growing has induced some people to remain in tillage while their neighbours were going away from tillage.
Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney asked if I thought legislation would be necessary for the growing of beet. Legislation for that purpose will be necessary in some form or other. There could, for instance, be an ordinary customs duty imposed on sugar coming in, and the putting on of that duty would mean legislation. Alternatively, beet-growing could be encouraged under the present system of a direct subsidy as well as an indirect protection by way of customs duty. In either case legislation would be necessary. I am convinced that beet cannot be grown economically under ordinary world competitive conditions. If we were to take the customs duty off sugar and give no direct subsidy I am certain that beet could not be bought by any factory on ordinary competitive lines. We may take it, therefore, that legislation will be necessary if we are to extend the growing of beet.
We have not reached the point where I could answer the question as to what parts of the country would be suitable for factories. The matter is being investigated by a committee, and I expect that committee will be able to submit a report in the near future. If the Government decides, as I believe they will, on an extension of beet-growing, we hope to have at least some factories established for the 1934 crop. Where these factories are to be established I am not in a position at present to say.
Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney asked what would be the considerations in the selection of a particular site. I could not at the moment answer that question, but I imagine the first consideration would be suitable agricultural conditions. We would want an area in which the beet could be grown profitably and, having got that area, the next question would be a site where all the necessary conditions would be fulfilled with regard to transport, water, the disposal of sewage, and other conditions, such as supplies of lime, easy access of fuel and so on. All these matters will be taken into consideration, and the sites would, I presume, be chosen by whatever experts would be attached to this particular scheme. The experts will choose these sites in an area where they are of opinion that the best beet could be grown.
Might I ask the Minister as to whether one of the calves of the white elephant, as one Minister has called this scheme, will be established in south Mayo?
What is the area this year under beet?
The area this year is something of an increase over last year. It is something over 15,000 acres.
What is it as compared with a normal year? I think last year was an abnormal year.
No, last year was high. It was the year before that that was an abnormal year.
What was the area last year?
The acreage last year was 13,539. I have not got the exact figures for this year but as far as I can remember it was something about 15,200 acres.
Is it not the case in a great part of the wheat area that as much of the land was under tillage already as was available?
I would not say so.
