I think Deputy Cosgrave was speaking at the adjournment and as he is not here now, I presume I can go on. I have very little to add to what I said last night on the subject.
Public Business. - Industrial Credit Bill, 1933—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendments:—
1. Before paragraph (d) to insert a new paragraph (d) as follows—
"that the total commitment of the Company, whether by loan or investment or both, in any one concern shall not exceed £100,000."— (Deputy MacDermot).
2. In paragraph (e), line 60, to delete the word "five" and substitute the word "two."—(Deputy MacDermot).
May I ask are we discussing amendment 1?
Amendment 1 only.
No. We are discussing amendments No. 1 and No. 2 together.
I was not in the House at the time of the adjournment.
The two amendments are very closely connected. The reduction of the capital to £2,000,000 would naturally follow if not more than £100,000 was to be invested in any one concern. I happen to have seen since last night something which goes far to confirm the point of view which I was endeavouring to put forward with regard to this Bill and with regard, particularly, to the arrangement that no less than two-fifths of the capital of the company was to be employed very promptly in erecting, as I understand, three sugar beet factories. There appears to be a conflict of opinion as to how many. I understood the number was three. It so happens that there has just taken place a discussion in the British Parliament on agricultural questions, and in the course of that discussion this subject of sugar beet came up. The British Minister for Agriculture, who was most anxious to continue the sugar beet industry if possible, pointed out the various advantages which flow from it, but mentioned that nevertheless the cost was so great that it had been decided that a very close actuarial investigation was necessary in order to decide whether or not the Government was justified in continuing with the industry at all. I wonder very much if any such close actuarial investigation has been undertaken here, or whether it is going to be undertaken here, and if not, whether it would not be worth while at any rate to await the result of the British actuarial investigation which might throw a great deal of light upon our similar problem here. I wish to stress the point once again that the starting here in Ireland for the first time, I believe, of a big investment company, a sort of investment trust under Government auspices, is something extremely important, something that one is very anxious to see turn out a success, and if it is to have a fair chance of turning out a success it should proceed upon business principles. Above all, it should take account of the cardinal feature of every well-run trust, and that is the diversification of risks, so as not to put too large a portion of the capital into any one undertaking. The Bill as it at present stands runs absolutely counter to that principle. Moreover, I put it to the House that it is a mistake to start an enterprise of this kind on such a vast scale as £5,000,000. It would be much wiser to start more modestly and to limit ourselves to the not inconsiderable figure of £2,000,000 sterling.
Deputy MacDermot has dealt with the question of the proposed allocation in this issue of the amount for sugar beet. We have been told that another item that will entail a considerable amount of capital is the item for the manufacture of industrial alcohol. I do not know whether the Government plans have matured sufficiently for them to say whether that is a £250,000 or a £1,000,000 scheme. If the plans of the Government are sufficiently matured, I think that the Minister ought to give us some approximate figure. There is another point about industrial alcohol, and I do not know whether the Government and the Minister have paid sufficient attention to it. What are their plans for such a factory? I do not suggest that they should have everything prepared. They propose to substitute that for petrol and to drive motor cars and various other things by industrial alcohol. If so, I think there is almost a bigger, a longer, and a wider field to be undertaken in the experimental stages alone on the lines of how far it is profitable to use industrial alcohol in industry. The Minister ought to be aware, and I am sure he is aware, that when petrol is very cheap probably there is nothing in it. When it is dear there is a considerable difference. I understand that while you could, with a separate carburettor, drive a motor car on industrial alcohol alone, if you want to get really efficient results from it you would have to have an alcohol engine. It is not very different from the present petrol engine, but there is some difference.
If the Government are considering running motor cars in this country on industrial alcohol it is high time they started to educate private and public users of motor cars and started some experiment, such as finding out what they thought the alcohol could be supplied at, and offering people figures as to the price at which alcohol engines could be purchased for motor cars. I suggest the Government should not make the mistake of going ahead with their scheme of establishing a factory for producing industrial alcohol and then finding that it may take four or five years or a good deal longer to get any considerable consumption unless the ordinary users of motor cars are prepared to scrap their machines. I merely make these few remarks, not in any sense to ask the Minister for a cut-and-dried plan, but only to reinforce what Deputy MacDermot has said with regard to sugar. It is quite obvious, to my mind, that a considerable period must elapse before industrial alcohol could be used to any great extent in this country. I do not wish to be taken as throwing cold water on the possible success of manufacturing industrial alcohol, but I suggest to the Minister that its success will largely depend on the care and forethought that is given to every aspect of the case.
The remarkable thing about some of the Minister's statements on the type of industry that is likely to be developed through assistance on the part of this company is, in the first place, his very great uncertainty. Another remarkable thing is that all the principal industries that he mentions as likely to be established after getting considerable assistance from this company are industries that are only going to be kept in existence either by substantial sums being raised annually by way of subsidy from the taxpayers to keep them going, or substantially increased costs being placed on the consumers. Generally it seems to me that the Minister is going to look for a loan of £5,000,000 for carrying on a business which is not so much feeding the dog with its own tail or developing and building up the dog by feeding it on a bit of its own tail, but by feeding the dog on its hind legs. The Minister for Defence has been reminding us that agriculture is the important industry of the country. The Minister for Agriculture was in Clonmel on Sunday last and he was telling agriculturists generally that they could never again get to the situation in this country when they could do without tariffs, bounties or subsidies; they may alter the existing ones, but they would always have to have some. Our principal industry is to be bolstered up by tariffs, bounties or subsidies.
The attempts that are being made to develop the manufacturing industry have been very critically discussed by the President. He is not satisfied with how things are going. The discussion we had on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce would make us all feel the President had very good reason for not being satisfied. This company is going to assist in the development of industry, and one industry that it is going to be called upon to assist by apparently very substantial sums is, the Minister mentioned, the sugar beet industry. Deputy Dillon was quite right on one occasion recently when he described that as a big relief scheme for farmers. It gives a very limited amount of employment so far as the industry itself is concerned, through a very limited part of the year—three or four months. It gives employment on tillage over a very limited area, too, particularly when you consider the amount of money being put into this business and the amount of money that is going to be drawn from the consumer or taxpayer annually to support the industry.
The cement industry is going to be established and we have been warned by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that that is going to call for substantial payments in the way of assistance from the users of cement. He indicated that the cement industry, if established here, will raise the price of cement. We have not been told anything about industrial alcohol or about paper-making except that long ago it was suggested that the paper-making industry, if established here, would increase the cost.
Do not forget the mineral company.
One thing that arises when we do mention mining, industrial alcohol and paper-making is, will a Bill be introduced to deal with these matters in the same way as a Cement Bill has been introduced, and in the same way as the Sugar Beet Bill, which we have not yet seen, is to be? Must the House review, by way of legislation, each of these major industries before they are embarked on? Otherwise we will get no information about them. I suggest if industrial alcohol is not in the same class as beet and if the development of mineral resources is not in the same class as beet—that is, if these are not going to be big industrial enterprises throwing an annual burden on the taxpayer—the Minister might tell us something about them. With our agricultural industry in the position which the Minister for Agriculture stated and with our general industrial position just as the President mentioned—it is in that position as affecting our general credit that the Minister proposes to raise a loan of £5,000,000. While demanding of this House power to raise that £5,000,000 he is, nevertheless, in the position that he does not know what he is going to do.
Early in his reply on the Industrial Credit Bill he said:
"There is the new sugar beet undertaking; possibly, though not probably, a new cement undertaking; possibly, also, but not probably, proposals for the re-establishment of the paper-making industry; possibly and probably, the establishment of an undertaking to manufacture industrial alcohol."
We were told that there were to be three sugar beet industries likely to be established, maybe four. The probability in the earlier part of his speech seemed to disappear in the latter part, I admit, when the Minister went on to say that he would want £750,000 for cement, £500,000 for the paper-making industry, and would be wanting up to £400,000 for the four big factories. If the Minister is in that state of mental indecision with regard to these matters why does he demand in this measure the whole £5,000,000? I submit that if he is proposing to borrow this year and is likely to be in the position to do so, he is unnecessarily putting a very big burden of debt upon this country and more than he at all requires. He is perhaps doing what is worse. He is telling those people interested in the management of sugar beet factories, interested in the management of cement factories, and interested in the management of those other things, that if they are able to monopolise the technical side and the technical equipment for the running of these industries, then they need not risk their capital in them at all, and that the Minister will provide through this company any amount of money. There will be an inducement to those people, as I take it there are classes of people interested in the management, collecting the technical staff and assuming the technical management, to come along and almost prevent private capital from coming into these undertakings when they can so easily and with such magnificent and splendid ease secure the amount of capital provided by the Minister for Finance.
The Minister is, I think, acquiring too easy a way of dealing with millions. It must come very easy to members of the Government who promised to economise to the extent of £2,000,000, to find when they came into office that they could increase expenditure by putting an additional £6,000,000 of taxation upon the people. It must come very easy to the Minister who has that experience and the nerve to indulge in Governmental operations like this to say to himself, "After all, what difference does it make between £2,000,000 and £5,000,000. We may as well have the £5,000,000." I suggest to the Minister that this is an injustice to the whole of our financial position and an injustice to his own wish to get private capital, or any other kind of capital, invested in Irish industry here rather than that it should be all State capital, for the whole of the industrial development here. Therefore I submit that both the amendments moved by Deputy MacDermot are perfectly reasonable and if accepted would in no way stand in the way of carrying on the business of this company on, at any rate, sensible lines. This is not the last day, and £2,000,000 is certainly enough for the Minister to go ahead with. He can quite readily come back to the House later and give a statement of the position he finds himself up against and ask for whatever more money is necessary if he needs it.
The sum of £700,000 would probably be required for the manufacture of cement. I presume that that enterprise here in the Free State would be operated by a group of experts. The Minister takes up the unsubscribed capital which the public do not take up. Will the group, or the business firm, which operates in this country under licence from the Minister of Industry and Commerce, be limited to subscribe only 50 per cent. of the capital according to a previous Act that passed this House?
I support these two amendments of Deputy MacDermot and I do so for the reasons already mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy. The Minister seems to be in the most uncertain state as to how this £5,000,000 is to be disposed of. I am perfectly satisfied that if any son were to approach his father and ask for £500 for a scheme of such uncertainty as that put forward by the Minister he would not succeed in getting a single pound. I support the amendment not because I approve of the Minister getting £2,000,000 or getting anything, but simply because I think it is better he should get only £2,000,000 and not £5,000,000.
I also desire to support the amendments. I do say that the Minister has not given any sufficient or definite information to the House as to what the scope of the expenditure is likely to be which is to be incurred in connection with this £5,000,000 of money. £5,000,000 of money is an extraordinarily large amount of finance in this poor country. It is being juggled around here as if it was a matter of no consequence. What I am afraid is that the Minister has not offered a proper explanation as to the foundation of this company and has left the whole matter too indefinite to be regarded as a serious proposition. Looking at his opening speech last week we find in every second sentence the words "possibly" and "probably." First of all there was to be a new sugar beet undertaking possibly, though not probably. Possibly there was to be a cement undertaking. Possibly, not probably, there would be a paper-making industry, and probably an industrial alcohol undertaking. Probably also there would be development of the mineral resources of the country. Probably or possibly we would have to provide for the financing of all or any of these projects and other contingencies for which we must make provision. I am afraid of all the possibilities in this Bill. It is all too indefinite. Some of the Minister's ideas as regards flourishing industries, as revealed last week, would call for very serious examination. Take the question of paper-making. It is easy to proceed from paper-making to newspaper-making, the establishment of which might run into something like £100,000. We might find that possibly or probably some of this money would be diverted into a newspaper scheme which might cost the citizens thousands per week.
What an idea!
It is an extraordinary idea. Possibly and very probably this whole scheme is not going to have the result we would like to get from it. I think if the conditions in the country were such, and that if the buoyancy that the Minister told us prevailed in financial circles did actually prevail, it would be better for the financial stability of the country if schemes mentioned here could be initiated and possibly financed before Government help was sought at all.
According to Deputy MacDermot we should wait and hear what the British Government would have to say in regard to the sugar beet industry before we go any further. Now we have Deputy O'Neill wondering which particular form of industrial scheme would be best for the country —a scheme of devoting £500,000 or £1,000,000 each year to give temporary employment to a few starving men for a couple of months, or the settling of those men once and for all in permanent industries in this country. What neither Deputy MacDermot nor Deputy O'Neill seems to realise is that all the Minister will have to put into shares in those companies is the balance that will not be subscribed by public subscription. In all probability, the full money will be found by public subscription, and I will guarantee that there will be no possibility of the whole of it going to the Belgians in the way it went in the case of the former sugar beet scheme.
I say that we will, first, protect the farmers who are going to produce the beet and see that the foreigner will not get a guaranteed bonus, while, at the same time, our own people are left unprotected and at the mercy of the foreigner as to what price he will give for the beet. That was where the last sugar beet industry in this country failed—that the foreigner got his bonus secured for a certain number of years, while the farmer who was producing the beet got no protection whatever. The farmer got a guaranteed price for two or three years, but the Belgian got a guarantee for a far longer period. The kernel of this whole matter is whether or not we are going to wipe out the sore of unemployment in this country.
Would the Deputy permit me to put this question to him? Does he hold that 20 industries in different parts of the country, each with £100,000 supplied by this new company, would give less employment than £2,000,000 entirely devoted to three sugar beet factories?
I have no information before me that all this money is going to be put into beet sugar. Deputy O'Neill dealt with the possibilities and the probabilities of the matter.
I was quoting the Minister.
Deputy Corry says that it is interfering with efforts to give employment. I maintain that it would give more employment.
We all know Deputy MacDermot's views on the question of unemployment. They were driven home to us very well during and immediately after the last general election. I take it that Deputy MacDermot accepts some little responsibility for the views of the Party he leads in this House. We know their views as regards employment and their views as regards freedom of thought as it is exercised by ordinary people.
On a point of order——
What is wrong with you?
The Deputy is quite within his rights in rising on a point of order.
I should like to know is the Deputy in order or is he entitled to make direct attacks on Deputy MacDermot on the question of employment?
The Deputy is not in order. He has rambled away from the subject.
Deputy MacDermot asked me a question in connection with employment and I answered him. I do not think I was transgressing the rules of order in giving way to the Deputy to allow him to ask his question and then answering it.
The Deputy must realise that the Chair is the judge of that.
I bow to your ruling, sir. To return to what I was saying, that, to my mind, is the kernel of this whole question—whether we are going to have each year £2,000 or £3,000 thrown into this town or that town to give employment for a couple of months, or whether we are to lay down a basis of industries here that will give permanent employment to our people and give the farmers on the land a chance of getting something for their time and labour. Deputy Holohan has made some remark, but Deputy Holohan's constituency was well sweetened by the President of the former Executive Council when he shifted the proposed beet sugar factory from Buttevant up to Carlow.
And Buttevant has not got any of the other three factories yet either.
It would be better for the Deputy to buy a sweep ticket.
The ticket would never come out of the drum if you had the drawing of it, anyhow.
As I was saying, that, to my mind, is the kernel of this problem; whether we are to provide permanent employment here or whether we are to continue Deputy Mulcahy's old rule of the sop and the dole.
I propose to say only a few words on this matter. It has been the Fianna Fáil policy, or at least their professed policy, to spread industries as far as possible all over the country, and the amendment put forward by Deputy MacDermot is aimed at putting that policy into operation. Twenty industries scattered all over the country would have the effect of putting the policy into operation and with that money scattered over a great number of small concerns there would be less risk of loss to the nation. This scheme is something in the nature of an experiment and, as an experiment, I suggest that there should not be too much latitude at the very start. Experiments should be taken in a small way and then it would be an encouragement to future enterprises if this scheme should prove a success.
The proper subject for debate on this amendment might be, first of all, as to whether the amount of the nominal share capital of this company is excessive for the objects and purposes which it is designed to serve, and as to whether it is necessary that some restriction should be imposed upon the employment of such resources as it may be provided with from time to time by the public or by the State. Possibly, the proper way to discuss it would be to take the second amendment first. At least, the logical course of the discussion would be, I believe, to take the second amendment first, and then deal with the first amendment which appears in the name of Deputy MacDermot. However, I propose to deal with the first amendment for the reason that it seems to me that the adoption of this amendment would be to alter radically the character of the company. It would be to convert it into that type of an organisation to which an amendment of this kind might be properly suited; that is to say, convert this company, which is originally an underwriting company prepared to take risks, into an investing company.
The whole basis of that amendment, as Deputy MacDermot has said, is to ensure that in the investments which the company makes there will be that diversification of risks which is generally accepted as being essential to the proper organisation, management, and control of an investment trust. But in regard to the major concerns in the flotation and the financing of which this company is going to be engaged, I think we have to consider, first of all, what is the amount of risk. I have indicated that it is intended to take a large and essential part in the financing of the new sugar beet manufacturing undertaking. I have indicated that it might possibly be called upon to take a substantial part in the financing of the cement-making industry. What risk is there associated with one or other of these concerns? They will be floated under conditions which will reduce that risk to a minimum and which, in the opinion of the Government, and of the Oireachtas, if it passes the Acts, will ensure their success. The same can be said in regard to the other industries I have mentioned, the paper-making industry and the other projects which the Government have in mind, none of which will be launched until its ultimate success can be clearly foreseen. Therefore, at once, so far as this particular company is concerned, the necessity which, in the case of the ordinary investment trust, leads those who are responsible for it to seek a diversification of risks, vanishes here. There is no risk.
Is the Minister aware of the financial history of the previous cement companies in this country?
Under foreign control.
Home management.
I am merely saying that to show that there is no risk, and I believe that the proposals which will be submitted with regard to the other industries will clearly show, both to the public and the Dáil, that there is no risk.
Where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise.
Even the Deputy might, in the ten or 15 years which have elapsed since the cement-making industry was killed in this country, have learned a little as to the reasons of that failure. The works were closed down in the interests of a combine——
No.
——which wanted to secure a monopoly in this market but, owing to the fact that there was an alteration in the status of this country in 1922, we were enabled to get outside the marketing ring established in connection with that particular industry.
That was not the cause.
To get back to my argument.
You are on a bad line there.
I listened with patience even to the Deputy.
I am listening patiently.
In this case there is no risk——
Of success.
——and there is no fear but that we will succeed.
I hope you do.
I know that. I am merely asking the Deputy to——
To go on hoping.
No. I am not even asking him to go on hoping if he does not believe that hope is justified. But I am asking him to accept the fundamental principle of this Bill, that the powers which the Bill will confer will be utilised for the purpose of financing industries, the success of which will be assured, so far as Governmental help and assistance can ensure success.
That is very far.
By bounties, taxation, and increased prices to the consumer.
Above everything else, by a reduction in the amount of unemployment in this country and the creation of a purchasing power among the idle members of the community.
A complete scheme.
Did I hear the Deputy say beet?
I said that it was a complete scheme.
I thought you said beet. I was wondering whether the Deputy was now preparing to throw over beet, in view of the fact that Deputy Hogan is sitting beside him, and say that a sum of almost £3,000,000 which has been spent in an experiment in that particular industry, has been wasted or lost. Therefore, the whole investment was a foolish and misguided one for which, as Deputy Mulcahy said, this country has to pay in taxation.
It has been wasted if the Minister has learned nothing from the experiment.
He has learned a good deal from the experiment, as the sugar beet proposals when they come before the Dáil will indicate. We do not propose to proceed in the manner our predecessors did. I was dealing with the fact that in this case there is no necessity to seek that diversification of risk. Even if there was some urgent drive, where are we going to find in this country this diversificativeness? An investment company operating in a highly industrialised community, where there are a considerable number of projects to pick and choose from, might accept, without being unduly hampered by it, an amendment such as Deputy MacDermot proposes, because they would have no difficulty in getting 200 or 300 concerns in which to invest the units of £100,000 to which Deputy MacDermot would limit it. Here you could not get that.
What about the 300 factories?
At this moment none of them requires £100,000.
Do not be too sure about that.
As they expand and grow, I have no doubt that they will require additional financial resources, and, if they do, they can either get the money from the public or from this company. That brings me back to a point made by Deputy MacDermot. While I have indicated that the major purpose of this company is to provide the capital required for the larger undertakings which the Government has in mind in order to give effect to its industrial policy, there is nothing which will prevent this company from investing in existing industrial undertakings, if such undertakings desire to come to the company, and in coming to the company accept the disadvantage to which I referred last night, that at any moment the Minister might, by pressure in the Dáil, be compelled to state that so much public money is invested in that concern and that the position of that particular concern is such-and-such.
Again, I was saying that even if it were necessary to give that diversification of risk which Deputy MacDermot has referred to and which he has informed the House is his policy in putting down this amendment, nevertheless it would be in the present circumstances of this State impossible to give practical effect to that principle, because there are not a sufficient number of risks sufficiently diversified to enable us to make the considerable number of investments that Deputy MacDermot has in mind, if his mind is expressed by his second amendment.
Then what was the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Bill for?
I was saying, when the Deputy interrupted me, that there was no possibility of doing this, and I was going to say further that there was no necessity. The purpose of this company is to finance undertakings which we believe will be a success, and which the Government will do everything to make a success until such time as the public are convinced that they are successful, and will be prepared to relieve the Government of the burden of financing them. Apart altogether from those considerations we have to consider the practical utility of this amendment. We must not, according to Deputy MacDermot, make any greater investment than £100,000 in any one concern, whether it is sound or whether it is unsound. Whether it is a good risk or a bad risk it is to be subject to the same restriction. Cannot the Deputy see that an investment of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 in a concern like the new sugar beet undertaking would be, in all the circumstances, a safe and sound investment, and that the investment of even 100,000 pence in another concern, not of that kind and not of that nature, not supported and sustained in the same way by the Government, would be a risky and foolish and misguided investment?
Certainly.
Exactly. I understand the purpose of Deputy MacDermot's amendment is to prevent the company from making an unwise or a foolish investment, but the means which he chooses would equally prevent the company from making a wise or from making a foolish investment. If the concern is, in the minds of all reasonable men, a concern that is going to be a success, surely if this company were going out as an ordinary profit-making concern it would be the duty of the directors to place all the free resources of the Industrial Credit Corporation in an undertaking of that sort——
Certainly not.
——which was an assured success; which would be backed with the Government guarantee; for which the Government would ensure such market conditions that it could not possibly fail unless it were grossly mismanaged? Deputy MacDermot's amendment would prevent the Industrial Credit Corporation from making an investment in a concern of that sort, and would not at the same time prevent the Corporation from investing £100,000 in an absolutely wildcat scheme.
Would the Minister allow me to intervene? No amendment such as this could protect any company against bad judgment on the part of its directors. If the directors are foolish enough to invest in an unsound scheme, all this amendment would achieve would be that at any rate they could not invest more than £100,000 in it. The princple of not putting too many eggs in one basket holds good for every investment trust and every individual. It is nonsense talking about assured successes, because that is a matter of human judgment too, and human judgment is fallible as to what is an assured success. It is for that reason that investment trusts have hard and fast rules which they stick to. In spite of the glowing prospects that may attend a particular enterprise they refuse to put more than a certain proportion of their resources into it.
Deputy MacDermot has made the point which I was making, that is, that this amendment will not protect the company against the consequences of bad judgment, but it would hamper the better judgment of the directors of the company in relation to perfectly sound concerns. While I quite admit that the principle which Deputy MacDermot is asking the Dáil to accept in this matter is a sound one, normally applied to normal undertakings, it is not a principle that we should attempt to enforce in regard to this company, because this company is primarily not an investment trust, and not an undertaking in which people place their money because they feel it is certain, because they feel it is good, or because they know they are going to get a sure and certain and large return—a comparatively large return, taking all the factors into consideration. This is essentially a company that is going to take risks. That is why we are establishing it, and not to avoid risks. It is established to accept those risks which ordinary commercial investors in this country at the present moment and in the state of industrial development of this country are not prepared to accept.
The particular risks which suit the Fianna Fáil Party.
The particular risks which suit the country as a whole. Deputy Cosgrave, in speaking last night, asked us has there been any advertence to the present economy of the country. There has been. There has been full advertence to this fact, that we have the most "lop-sided" economy, not merely in Europe, but, I should say, in any civilised part of the globe. We are in this unique position, that 67 per cent. of our people are compelled to scratch a living out of the soil, and they are not able, according to what has been said by Deputy Mulcahy and other members of the Opposition Party, to make a living out of the soil.
A Deputy
Whose fault is it?
Denmark, which is a much bigger agricultural producer than we are, carries only 25 per cent. of its people on the land. We find that our markets are dwindling, but they did not begin to dwindle in the year 1932.
No, they flopped.
In the year 1926 a competent investigator estimated that the total income of the agricultural community in this country was £46,000,000. In 1929, that income had declined by 45 per cent. to £25,000,000, and in the two following years, it only declined by a further £7,000,000 so that the greater part of the flopping, if there was flopping, took place during the period when the Deputy opposite was a member of the Executive Council, and was largely responsible therefore for the flopping.
It is funny that we only feel it now.
I will agree with the Deputy in part. He is only feeling it now, but those who were in Opposition, and those who were moving through the country, as the Deputy is beginning to move through the country since he went into Opposition, were feeling it, and the country was feeling it from 1926 to 1929 and 1930.
What the Minister is saying now will astonish Deputy Keating.
It is clear that the income from agricultural sources was declining, that the beginning of the decline was in 1922, and it has continued to decline ever since, and that something must be done to provide alternative means of livelihood for those people; that the Government has adverted to the fact that we have a lop-sided economy, and is prepared to ask the House to put £5,000,000, at any rate, as a first instalment at its disposal, to redress the balance, to give us a symmetrical economy, and to enable us to build up here some sort of industrial activity that will provide a livelihood for people who, inevitably, if these conditions were to continue, would be driven off the land, and driven out of the country, as happened in 1846 and 1847. It is with a full advertence to our lop-sided economy that this Bill has been introduced. I am sorry I have not been able to deal with the other points that were raised.
I do not intend to go into any details regarding the beet sugar and other products, the financing of which is contemplated under the Bill. The beet sugar proposals will be before the House next week, when it will have an opportunity of examining and discussing them in every detail. The same will be true of all the other measures and proposals in which the Government is interested directly. As the House will have a full opportunity of considering them, I do not think, at this stage, there is anything to be gained by taking up time and going any further into them. With reference to the beet sugar industry, as established in Great Britain, it should be stated that the beet sugar factories in Great Britain were amongst the least efficient in the world. There has been a huge conflict of interest between the various sections in Great Britain on the sugar question. On the one hand, the Bristol refineries, drawing raw materials from the British West Indies, are anxious that Government assistance and Government countenance of the sugar beet manufacturing industry should be withdrawn. On the other hand, are beet sugar factories of an obsolete pattern, established at a time when capital costs were high and, not too efficiently managed. It was under these circumstances that the British Minister for Agriculture, while admitting—and this is the significant point for us—that, from the point of view of agriculture, and from the point of view of the general economy of the people, the sugar beet industry had a great deal to recommend it, nevertheless, in view of other circumambient factors, a searching investigation would have to be made before it could be established in the particular circumstances of Great Britain—with a huge trade built up between Bristol and the West Indies dependant for supplies of raw cane sugar from that British Posession—that it would be, on the whole, economically wise to continue to finance on the same lavish scale as heretofore the beet sugar industry. That does not apply to this country. If we went into the sugar beet industry we would be growing the raw material, every process in the manufacture of sugar would be carried out, every penny piece we send abroad for the purchase of sugar would be kept here, and spent amongst our own people, providing employment for industrial workers and for farmers and their sons.
Can 49 per cent. of the new capital be subscribed outside this country?
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies R. Holohan and McGovern; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 2 in the name of Deputy MacDermot:—
In paragraph (e), line 60, to delete the word "five" and substitute the word "two."
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided. Tá: 69; Níl: 55.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies O'Donovan and Holohan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
I propose to take the Report and Final Stage to-morrow morning.
Ordered accordingly.