What do these expenses in Section 3 mean? Have they anything to do with the subsidies in connection with the factories or have they to do only with the promotion expenses?
In Committee on Finance. - Sugar Manufacture Bill, 1933—Committee.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This is an ordinary section making provision for the expenses of the administration of the Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
I move:—
After paragraph (3) (f) to add a new paragraph as follows:—
(g) that except under licence from the Minister, all fuel used in the company's factories shall be of Irish origin.
I hope the Minister will find no difficulty about accepting this amendment. This company is going to be the spoilt darling of the Government. The State will supply the company with capital, guarantee its debentures, give it absolute power to acquire land and will increase the price of sugar for the benefit of the company. I think we may fairly ask in return that a company for which everything that can be done is being done should, in the ordinary course of its business, develop the resources of the State. I think it important to raise this matter of fuel now in the Bill itself, and not, at a later stage, as a matter of administration, because if it is understood that it is to be the policy of the Government to secure that when possible Irish fuel shall be used in the company's factories, it is best that that should be known now before the sites of the factories are fixed. For example, one of the places claiming the privilege of having a factory is the town of Boyle in my constituency. It is eminently well situated for taking advantage of the fuel resources of the Arigna area. If it is known now that as a result of the acceptance of this amendment the Government will expect, within reason, that this company should use Irish fuel that will obviously have an effect in determining the places where these factories will be put up. I hope, as I said, at the start, that the Minister, in view of his general outlook on the question of the development of our internal resources, will make no difficulty at all about accepting this amendment.
The only principle involved in this amendment is one which has the most sympathetic acceptance by the Government. The question that arises is whether this is a type of thing which ought to appear in the Articles of Association of a company. I am very doubtful as to whether, if the House did decide that a condition of this sort should be exacted by legislation, this is the particular Bill in which such a condition should appear. It would seem to me that it ought to be, if anything, a part of a measure which would generally apply to industrial undertakings.
Certainly not.
Why not?
Because this particular undertaking is not an ordinary competitive undertaking. It is, as I said at the beginning, one of the spoilt darlings of the Government. If the Minister dislikes such a condition being put into the Articles of Association, I have no objection to the matter being dealt with by putting a new section into the Bill itself, instead of putting in an addition to the Schedule. But one way or another the thing is perfectly practical if the Minister wishes to do it.
The matter may be perfectly practical, but whether a proviso of this sort should be inserted in an Act of the Oireachtas is another matter. I take it that, as the Minister will have power of appointment of the board of directors of the company, and as they will be very largely administering public funds, they will endeavour to conform in that administration to the general policy of the Government with regard to Irish industries, and particularly in regard to Irish fuel; that they will have regard to the considerations which have moved the Deputy to put down this amendment, when they were considering, first of all, the sites; secondly, the type of furnace which is to be installed in the factory; and thirdly, the amount of local employment which would be given indirectly by the establishment of the sugar beet factory. For that reason, I would suggest to the Deputy that the amendment is unnecessary. I think it would look out of place in the Articles of Association. I think a Bill of this nature is not the proper instrument in which to impose this condition upon any industrial undertaking, and particularly upon industrial undertakings which are established under Government auspices, because in connection with those undertakings there is less fear than there is in the case of concerns which are privately owned and managed that the considerations which have moved the Deputy to put down this amendment would be disregarded.
Once again I should like to emphasise that in considering the situation in which these beet factories will be placed one very important consideration will be that there should be native fuel supplies in the vicinity, but it cannot be an overriding factor. I think the Deputy will agree that it should not be an overriding factor. It will be a consideration to which due weight will be given by the technical adviser who will select those sites on behalf of the Government. I, therefore, suggest that the Deputy should not press the amendment.
I seem to have entirely misunderstood the situation if what the Minister has said is true. He talks of the technical adviser selecting the sites on behalf of the Government. From the beginning to the end of the Bill I have understood that the sites would not be selected by the authority of the Government at all; that they were to be selected by a committee of experts.
On behalf of the company.
On behalf of the company, not on behalf of the Government. What would they care about Irish fuel? Nothing at all. Quite possibly they would actually select sites away from Irish fuel districts, because they would know that if there were Irish fuel in the vicinity public opinion would force them to use it; that they would be more independent if the sites were not near Irish fuel districts. It seems to me that when the Minister says no such condition as this should be imposed on an industrial company he is, in the words of his colleague, taking the accountant's point of view; he is not looking at the men and women behind this problem. Here is his chance to show he has a heart, and, apart from showing he has a heart, to show that he has a head. Unless this condition with regard to fuel is adopted in the Bill, in time for those experts to see what is expected of them, I maintain that the chances of Irish fuel resources receiving any development as a result of this company's activities are extremely small. I certainly intend to press the amendment.
Is the Minister in possession of any information from the experts regarding this matter? Has it been put to them? Has he any information in regard to the use of Irish coal in the Carlow factory? Will furnaces suitable for the use of Irish coal be installed? If not, obviously the directors will be almost compelled to use other fuel. If there are furnaces installed in which the experts advise it is possible to burn Irish fuel, then a different situation arises. From what the Minister has said I did not gather that he had examined the experts on the subject.
Before the Minister replies I should like to say that I think the amendment is a little bit indefinite with regard to fuel. I should like to ask Deputy MacDermot what he means by fuel. Is the fuel used in a sugar factory necessarily coal? We have heard a great deal in this House about the possibilities of peat. There is also oil fuel. What does the Deputy mean by fuel? I should also like if the Minister would give us some idea as to the quantity of fuel used in the manufacture of sugar. I believe that at the present time there is nothing used but coal, and I should like to know how much coal is used per ton of sugar produced.
I used the word "fuel" to cover anything that the company might choose to burn in its factories, including even Fianna Fáil election literature.
I do not know if the Deputy has any business experience. I gather that he has not. If he had, I am quite certain he would not have put down this amendment. The Deputy asks that the company should be compelled by legislation to use Irish fuel. From his remarks I gathered that he had coal mainly in mind. He is concerned to ensure that the factory must be located adjacent to the coal mines. As the Minister for Finance has said, the availability of Irish coal or other suitable fuel will be a factor taken into account in determining the sites of the factories. I should like the Deputy to consider the position of the company if his amendment placing on them a statutory obligation to use Irish fuel were carried, and the Government were unable to guarantee a supply of Irish fuel, or unable to guarantee it at a price which would be regarded as reasonable.
The Minister has not noticed the words "except under licence from the Minister."
The mere insertion of this phrase in the Articles of Association does not give the Minister power to prevent the company from getting other fuel. The Deputy must consider this as a practical proposition. If it is intended as a demonstration in favour of his own constituency we will leave it at that. If it is intended as a serious contribution towards the establishment of those factories it does not count for much, because it obviously shows lack of consideration. At the present time the Carlow factory is using Irish coal to a large extent. The experiment which the Carlow factory embarked upon involved certain capital expenditure in the alteration of its boilers. It appears to have been quite successful, but I cannot say that with absolute certainty, because no reports on the experiments have reached me. The fuel which the Carlow factory is using is of a low grade quality which was formerly regarded as unsuitable for the firing of boilers. From the information which is available it would appear that it is being used successfully there, but until we have definite evidence that that is so I think it is a mistake to put in a condition of this kind. I gather that Arigna coal is quite suitable for use in boilers, and is so used in a number of institutions. We have, however, to take into account not merely the suitability of the coal but the quantity available, and the cost of transporting it to a particular factory. It is proposed to establish three factories under this Bill. County Roscommon will consider itself lucky if it gets one of them. Quite certainly it does not anticipate getting the whole three. It is possible that one of them might be a big distance away from Arigna or Castlecomer, or any other centre where Irish coal is available. Despite the desire of the Government and the directors of the company to utilise Irish coal it may not be possible to do so.
Those are all circumstances which have to be taken into account. I think the Deputy may be satisfied in his own mind that the desire of the Government to foster the development of the coal mines here and encourage the use of Irish fuel is at least as strong as his own, and that they will be able to transmit that desire to the directors whom they appoint on the board of the company. If the Deputy will accept the Government's assurance on that matter I think he will realise that it is unnecessary to put in a binding clause of this kind—a clause of a most unusual description—into the Articles of Association of the company, bearing in mind that it would require legislation to enable effect to be given to it, legislation conferring on the Minister powers which would enable him to exercise the functions which the Deputy proposes to give him.
Might I ask the Minister whether the power necessary for the working of a sugar factory could be obtained from electricity, because I should like to point out to him that though there may be coal in Arigna, there is electric power in Mayo —Shannon power?
If this is an unusual condition, it is only appropriate that there should be an unusual condition, because this is a most unusual company and a most unusual Bill. I am not at all prepared to accept the assurance of the Government, because though they may, no doubt, in theory, wish to develop Irish fuel resources, the preoccupation of the moment is not with that but with the sugar company. I want to see that the other matter is brought to a point simultaneously. The Minister talks about business experience being inconsistent with this proposal. I venture to say that my business experience has been at least as long and as wide as his. I am not to be put down by talk of business experience though we may be drifting back again to the accountant's point of view which the Minister has himself scoffed at. If it requires legislation to empower the Minister to give such a licence, or to force compliance of the company with this article of association, I see no obstacle in the way of such legislation. It could be included in this Bill. If the Government had any real desire to operate the principle of this amendment, they could perfectly well make the necessary changes in the Bill. At present I regard their attitude as thoroughly unsatisfactory.
With all due respect to the Deputy's experience of Parliamentary business——
Not Parliamentary business.
I should like to ask the opinion of the Ceann Comhairle as to whether an amendment of this sort is in order. It is proposed in the amendment that no fuel shall be used in the company's factories except it is of Irish origin or is imported under licence by the Minister. It does not seem to me that there is anything in the principle of the Bill or in the Long Title of the Bill which would empower the Minister to issue a licence for the importation of fuel. I submit since the amendment does contemplate a licensing provision it would not be in order.
This amendment has been moved and the matter has been debated by the Minister amongst others. That is proof that the Ceann Comhairle has accepted the amendment as being in order.
As one who comes from a coal-producing area and who has had experience of Government policy translated into action in respect of the importation of coal in the case of one particular industry, I would seriously suggest to Deputy MacDermot the advisability of withdrawing this amendment and of not insisting on it. The Government's policy in regard to the use of Irish products generally, particularly in respect of fuel, is, I think, very well known. We know that Irish fuel is used to an increasing extent in all our public institutions, particularly where the Minister can influence public bodies. In regard to the Minister's licensing power, I know that he will not give a licence for the importation of fuel for one factory that I know where the native product is available. Licences have been absolutely refused where a strong case was put up to the Minister to allow the importation of a small proportion of foreign coal so that it might be mixed with the native product to ascertain if better results might be obtained. That answers Deputy MacDermot's suggestion that the Government are not really as serious as they profess to be in advancing the use of Irish products generally. We have had experiments carried out in a factory in the South of Ireland regarding the comparative merits of foreign fuel and native fuel for the production of steam power. These experiments have been recently carried out and I am very glad to be able to inform the Minister that it has been ascertained that the native coal is much more economical. The factory itself has turned over from using 100 per cent. foreign fuel to using 100 per cent. Irish fuel and with very much better results. With regard to the question of freight, there may not be very much difference in transport costs, but I would suggest that in view of the Minister's statement Deputy MacDermot might withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy's speech is unquestionably in favour of Deputy MacDermot's amendment.
In my opinion the real root of this matter has only been very lightly touched upon. Some speakers seem to think that there will be a choice as to whether people can use foreign coal, Irish coal or turf when the factory is erected. As I understand the problem, if Irish coal is going to be burned, a furnace of a certain type will have to be installed. I do not say that that furnace is greatly different from the furnace that would burn foreign coal, but it requires more air. We could not burn Irish coal in certain furnaces and probably the majority of furnaces have been put in with a view to the use of foreign coal. If a type of furnace—I suppose such a one could be designed—that would use Irish and English coal or turf, were installed, the engineer when he saw the efficiency of that boiler would probably commit suicide. The problem comes down to this, that some time before the precise specification for the boiler is drawn up, somebody will have to make up his mind as to what fuel to pin his faith to, and will have to decide that anything else that may be used will only be in the nature of a second best. The Minister has pleaded for a free hand for the experts to put up the factory according to their own requirements and he has urged that the location of the factory will have a bearing on the cost of the fuel. Naturally, it will. It would also have a bearing on the cost of the foreign fuel so that some time before the factory is erected plans will have to be drawn up as to what is the most efficient type of boiler. The sooner that calculation is made the better. I do not see why the Government could not get some facts made out as to what they consider the relative merits of the various fuels with the type of boiler which they consider necessary. The last speaker has referred to the fact that Irish fuel is used in certain institutions. That is perfectly true, but it can only be used where the boiler is suitable or has been altered to suit the Irish coal. That is the point that I really rise to make in this discussion, namely, that you cannot have a type of factory designed which will use turf, Irish anthracite, or foreign coal just according as the whim suits or as the price varies or as the supply is available. Somebody will have to make up their minds as to what type of boiler they want or what type of fuel they are going to look for, and the installation will have to be made accordingly. From that point of view, I should like to see Deputy MacDermot's amendment brought to the point where the Government will say "We favour Irish fuel" or "we do not favour it."
The adaptation of the boiler to use Irish fuel was quite easy in the case of Castlecomer coal.
Quite so; but in other cases it is a very expensive operation.
It all depends on the furnace.
I do not know whether, on this matter, Deputy MacDermot allowed his heart to be ruled by his head or whether he allowed his heart to run away with his head. As has been already explained, an experiment has been carried out in Carlow which indicates that Castlecomer coal may be economically used in manufacturing.
Had the boiler to be altered?
Yes, it had to be altered. The boiler was altered. The experiment indicates that Castlecomer fuel can be used economically and advantageously in the particular type of boiler which was installed for the purpose; but the experiment has not been conclusive. The experimental stage is not yet concluded. Are we, before the experiment has been finished, to compel this undertaking, every time it wishes to import coal, to secure a licence from a Minister? The amendment does not say which Minister. As the amendment is drafted, it would be the Minister for Finance because he is the Minister referred to in the definition section of the Bill—the Minister who has, at the present moment, no powers to prohibit the import of fuel and no powers to compel this company, as the Bill stands at present, to use fuel of any specific type. If Deputy MacDermot meant this amendment seriously as, I presume, if he presses it to a division, he wishes to hold himself out as doing, surely, some more consideration might have been given to it. I will read the amendment to the House. It says that "except under licence from the Minister, all fuel used in the company's factories shall be of Irish origin." There is nothing in this Bill giving the Minister for Finance power to issue a licence in respect of anything. It concerns itself solely with the formation of a company. If the Deputy had given all the thought to this that he pretends to have given, it would immediately have struck him that the Minister for Finance is not the proper person to issue a licence and that that is more particularly the duty and responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In that case, he would at least have added the words "Minister for Industry and Commerce" and he would have provided earlier in the Bill for an amendment of the Bill in such terms as would have given the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to issue licences under this Bill in respect of this particular company. He has not done that.
It seems to me that, speaking frankly, the Deputy has put down this amendment merely as a political demonstration and that he is not single-hearted or single-minded at all in this matter. This is not going to help to put a factory in Boyle. Whether Boyle gets a factory or not will depend entirely on the report of the technical adviser who will be instructed to take into consideration the question as to whether the factory will be advantageously situated for using Irish fuel. Whether or not the Deputy succeeds in forcing us into this, the technical adviser would still be given that as one of his terms of reference. Again, I suggest that, if the Deputy is concerned at all in this matter for the success of the company and does not wish to impose upon it an undue handicap which is going to increase eventually the cost of sugar to the State, to the consumer and to the farmers whom he claims to represent, he would not attempt to put what anyone would consider a thoughtless provision of this kind into a Bill like this to which it does not belong.
That, certainly, beats any speech I have heard from any Minister in this House for a long time. For the last 18 months anything that could possibly be done to increase the cost of the production of goods here has been done. Here we have a very intelligent amendment put down by Deputy MacDermot with the object of achieving a definite purpose. How is it received by the Ministry? Deputy MacDermot is criticised in all the moods and tenses for the terminology of his amendment which has been in the possession of the Ministry for, practically, the last week or fortnight. If they were in earnest about Irish manufacture and Irish produce and Irish industry generally, would they not have sat up with wet towels around their heads in order to think this out? Would they not have avoided all these social functions which they have attended during the last week or so and devoted some of that time towards providing for the miners of Castlecomer or Arigna or anywhere else? Not at all; they leave it to the House, and I doubt very much if the Minister read a word of this amendment until he came here to-day. He never told us that he consulted the experts, and they are now in force behind him. You could almost "form fours" with them, to use military phraseology. Apart from these, he has reserves outside. Not one of them has been asked nor has a single communication passed from the files to get information on this, and yet he criticises the Deputy for having put down something which may, possibly, be impracticable. This Government is the greatest licenser of everything that anybody ever heard of. Since they came into office scarcely a single measure has been passed that has not given them authority to give licences to somebody in connection with something or other.
The amendment is a practical one. It gives an opportunity for the development of Irish coal. If the Minister had made the statement that having examined his experts and consulted the Carlow Sugar Beet Factory he found that the coals produced here were unsuitable for use in a beet factory I would have accepted it at once. If there is one word more than another that can be applied to this measure it is the word extravagance. The plutocrats who are spending our money lavishly in every direction gave a microscopic examination to the proposal put forward by Deputy MacDermot, a proposal, the acceptance of which would ensure some employment in the district which he represents. This amendment has not been examined good, bad or indifferent by the Government. The second speech of the Minister showed that clearly when he put a question to the Ceann Comhairle as to whether the amendment was in order. He was racking his brains to see if possibly there was a way out of escape from the division lobby so that he would not have to oppose the use of Irish fuel. Do the decent thing, if it is possible at the end of your political days to do the decent thing, and accept the amendment.
Does the Deputy propose to vote for the amendment?
Sure.
If that is so, then Cumann na nGaedheal is coming on.
May I intervene for a second? I have been reproached for not doing this thing with more attention to Parliamentary forms. May I remind the Government that we had just 36 hours to put in amendments between the day on which the Bill got a Second Reading and the day that was originally fixed for Committee?
But the Deputy had an additional week since.
But I had plenty of other things to attend to. I had to rush this considering the short period that elapsed between Second Reading and the day originally fixed for Committee. It was with some hesitation that I put the words "the Minister" in the amendment instead of the "Minister for Industry and Commerce." Apparently I made the wrong choice. I shall be quite content if the Government are prepared to accept the amendment with the substitution of the words "Minister for Industry and Commerce" for "the Minister." Let me remind the Government again that this House is being asked to be romantically generous—no other words would express this strongly enough—so far as the sugar beet proposition is concerned. In view of that, I see no reason why we should not demand this little quid pro quo for the development of another Irish industry.
Deputy Cosgrave and his Party are going to vote for this for, I presume, the same reason as Deputy MacDermot had in putting it down. He has accepted Deputy MacDermot's argument. At all events he offered no new argument himself. Deputy MacDermot says that he wants this inserted in the Bill because the Government, as he said, have been romantically generous to this industry. The Government are going to protect this industry. That is all. They are going to give it the same measure of protection that they have given to many other existing industries. Therefore, according to the arguments of Deputy Cosgrave and of Deputy MacDermot any industry to which the Government gives protection should be required by law to use Irish coal, except when they are licensed by the Minister to use other classes of coal. Deputy Cosgrave accepts that. The policy of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, it now appears, is that in no protected industry should any fuel be used except Irish fuel, otherwise than under licence.
Is the Minister quite sure of that?
What is the Deputy's policy then?
We are dealing now with a sugar Bill.
And what is the difference between the sugar industry and any other industry? Deputy MacDermot talks of our being romantically generous to this industry. The only thing that we are doing for it is to protect it, and we have done that for a large number of other industries.
The Government are supplying the capital and the debentures.
And we are going to get a return on that capital. In so far as the taxpayer's money is invested in it, the taxpayer is getting a gilt-edged security, and is going to get back in dividends much more than his original investment.
And if a dividend is not earned, the taxpayer will have to pay that, too.
Order for the Minister.
Truth for the Minister.
And I am trying to get the truth. We are asked to insert this in the Bill because the Government are going to give these facilities to this industry; they are going to protect it. Why does not the same consideration apply in respect to any other industry that is protected? Can I have an answer to that?
Certainly. The Minister says very modestly that the Government are going to protect this industry. What is the protection? All the capital, if necessary, and a subsidy. Is it denied that there is going to be a subsidy?
There is no subsidy. Clearly the Deputy did not read the Bill.
I did. We are told now that there is going to be no subsidy. Could we be told what is the nature of the extra tax that there is going to be on sugar?
The Customs duty is going to be higher than the Excise duty. It will be a protective duty.
Now we have got it; all the capital, if necessary, and such imposition of duties as are necessary to protect the industry. That is a pretty high price.
It has been done in the case of many other industries.
What is normal protection? Is it not the difference between the estimate of the production of goods here and the cost of such imported goods? Is that not so? We were told the other day that this industry will produce sugar at 20/- per cwt. If it should transpire that it costs 23/- per cwt. to produce here, will not the consumers here be paying the difference?
I asked Deputy Cosgrave a question. He stood up to answer it, but he did not do so. The question is this: Is it the policy of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party that all protected industries must use Irish fuel unless licensed by the Minister? If that is its policy, I for one am delighted. It is a most welcome change on their part. I shall bring it immediately to the attention of the Executive Council so that we can have brought in here the necessary legislation to ensure that we will have the power to prevent a protected industry getting any fuel, except under licence, while Irish fuel is available. And if any of our industrialists protest against that measure I shall be able to point to this: that it was done at the unanimous desire of Cumann na nGaedheal and the Centre Party with Fianna Fáil thrown in.
Unless my recollection is at fault, the Minister for Finance, in the course of discussion, stated that there might be a shortage of this fuel. I do not know if my recollection is quite correct on that.
Does the Deputy think that is an argument against proceeding on those lines?
Not at all. I am reminding the Minister that if this amendment is going to be made to apply in respect of all industries that are protected, we nevertheless have had the statement from the Minister for Finance that there may possibly be a shortage of coal.
When I used that argument the Deputy did not see that there was any weight in it. I used it and said that while that was the position he was still going to vote for the amendment.
And now the Minister is going to go further.
The Deputy wants to go further. I have been trying to find out what is the policy of Cumann na nGaedheal. I know that they act on the general principle that they must vote against any Government proposal. Their policy is fairly determined by that consideration and none other. I would like to know if they are supporting this amendment in consequence of any particular plank in their programme, and if they regard it as right and proper that all protected industries should be required to use Irish fuel, except under licence, if Irish fuel is available. Do they, or do they not support that? If that is their policy, I am inclined to agree with it, but the necessary steps to implement that policy cannot be taken in this Bill. They may be taken in another measure. I hope when that measure appears before the Dáil that Deputy MacDermot and Deputy Cosgrave will use precisely the same arguments as they are using on this amendment, and I hope that Deputy Dockrell will be able to muster the business community of this State into one solid and enthusiastic phalanx behind such a measure.
And that the Minister will supply capital in the same proportion to other industries that may be protected as he is supplying to this one.
The same measure of protection. The only reason which might induce Government capital to be invested in this industry is that private investors may not be wide awake to the magnificent opportunity to make profits that is being offered to them. I hope the public will put their money into this industry so that Government capital will not be required. If Government capital has to be invested the taxpayer is going to get a return in abundance, because the industry will be as secure as any industry that was ever established, and the shares in the company will be gilt-edged securities of the best kind. If Deputy Cosgrave has any spare money available he will take my advice.
I cannot afford to lose it.
The Minister must have changed his mind since he spoke last. It was not an economic proposition then.
Let us consider the amendment, which asks "that except under licence from the Minister, all fuel used in the company's factories shall be of Irish origin." It is the purpose of the Government to ensure the most extensive use of Irish fuel. The House knows that the Government is doing its best to implement that policy, and will continue to do so. In so far as that is the Government policy, it will be given effect to, and these companies will be required, as far as possible, to use Irish fuel. If Irish fuel is available the company will be required to use it, and the directors appointed by the Government will have instructions to that end. If Irish fuel is not available they cannot do so. The insertion of an amendment of this kind gives the Government no extra power whatever. It merely means that if we decide that Irish fuel is not available, and that under the circumstances the company should not be required to use it, instead of saying: "Go ahead, and do what you think best," we will have to issue a licence. That is the only difference. Deputy MacDermot has not given the only reason why the amendment is on the Order Paper. He realises that his political stock in Roscommon is falling rapidly, and that it is necessary to do something to revive it. Deputy MacDermot referred to a statement I made in criticism of the Centre Party, in which I said that they always examined matters with the accountant's mind, looked at the figures, but not at the human beings behind them. Deputy MacDermot is beginning to look at the human beings now just because they happen to be voters in his constituency. If Deputy MacDermot resided in some other constituency, in which there did not happen to be the coal resources that there are in the constituency which he misrepresents, I do not think he would be the least interested in the amendment, or have taken any steps whatever to initiate a discussion of this kind in the Dáil. Deputy MacDermot may be quite satisfied that at the moment the Government is carrying out an examination which may result in a considerable development of the fuel resources he has in mind, and if he visits the constituency, and makes inquiries from those who know something about the matter, he will realise that the Government has been working while he has been talking.
A fellow feeling may be making us wondrous kind. I am rather surprised that the Minister's fellow feeling for Deputy MacDermot has not made him wondrous kind. He said that Deputy MacDermot is tottering in his political position in his constituency. But the Minister for Industry and Commerce is tottering far more. He is not only tottering in his constituency but tottering in the whole country. If Deputy MacDermot is tottering, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is tottering and the Government is tottering. The Minister ought to be moved with the very kindliest sympathy for Deputy MacDermot, because he is in the same position. We saw beautiful little play acting on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He wanted to know about the protected industries of Cumann na nGaedheal. I would like to point out that in spite of the vigorous speech made from the Fianna Fáil Benches by Deputy Gibbons which the Minister very strongly contradicted, the Minister told the House that Deputy Gibbons had been talking nonsense. He said that if the amendment was carried these unfortunate industries would be handicapped by having to bear an undue burden in burning Irish coal and that in consequence there would be an increased cost of sugar on the poor ratepayers. If the Minister for Finance is right it would certainly be very unfair to ask the ordinary individual to pay an increased cost. Let us have a try out where Government money is involved as there will not be any private money. If it happened that Deputy Gibbons is right, that the Minister for Finance is wrong, and that Irish coal, under certain circumstances, is just as efficient as fuel from any other country, that there will not be an undue handicap by using it, and no undue increase in the cost of sugar to the taxpayer, I think that a chance ought to be given to Irish coal and that it should be tried not at the expense of the private individual but in a company which is entirely Government financed. It will be practically Government managed so that that Irish industry could be used to make an experiment of this kind, rather than a private manufacturing company. I think the Minister for Finance absolutely surpassed himself by the speech he made. He seemed to be under the impression that the amendment sought to compel the use of English or foreign coal. It does nothing of the kind. The Minister stated that he had no power to issue a licence. Why should he issue a licence if he has no power to introduce fuel into this country? Is it not a pretty argument that if coal cannot be got, after the Minister for Industry and Commerce has prohibited the coming of foreign coal, then they would have to use Irish coal, whether they can use it or not?
What about the tariff?
It is only when the licence is issued and the coal is available he can be called upon to issue a licence. Is it compulsion of the Minister to introduce coal which is going to be produced in the country whether the Minister for Finance has or has not power to issue licences for importation? The Minister was speaking extemporaneously and obviously without consultation as to what the amendment meant. It appears to me that the Minister for Finance has run himself into an awkward position by the very funny speech he made. All the chivalry, kindliness, brotherly love, as well as the ability of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, which we have seen expended in the last few minutes, in a brave effort to extricate his unfortunate colleague was, I am afraid, absolutely to no purpose. With all the nice little jokes the Minister in his lightest vein cannot keep the real question hidden.
I only wish to add that if this company is the gilt-edged proposition that the Minister for Industry and Commerce says it is, no company could be more fitted to conduct the experiment of using Irish coal. The Minister for Finance maintained that the amendment would impose a hardship on the company.
It would impose a hardship on the Minister to issue licences.
I am saying what the Minister for Finance said about the company. The Minister for Industry and Commerce says that the amendment would make no difference. The amendment would make this definite difference, that it serves to bring it to the notice of all concerned that Irish fuel is expected to be used. Whatever either Minister said, it would undoubtedly influence the choice of sites for the factories and, as Deputy Dockrell pointed out, the preparations regarding the boilers. I cannot too emphatically declare that this amendment is absolutely genuine and that I would support it if my own constituency was not concerned at all. For the Government's sake I only wish they were half as secure in the country as I am secure in the County Roscommon.
I would like to know whether any Irish fuel has been used up to the present in the Carlow factory.
Yes.
I think that ought to be an assurance for Deputy MacDermot and for any commonsense men in this Assembly. We have been abused from the opposite benches because of our efforts to get Irish fuel utilised in the country. Our proposals were laughed to scorn.
They could only mean sweated labour.
In Cork we have discovered seams of coal. Since we got the Department of Industry and Commerce on a proper working basis they have investigated the resources of the country, a work that should have been carried out in the last ten years, and in Cork coal has been discovered. This may not have the effect of sweetening Deputy MacDermot's constituency, but I think it will have a pretty good effect in sweetening the constituency from which Deputy Cosgrave originally moved the factory, the constituency where it had been intended to erect one.
That statement is not true.
If it is not true, I withdraw and apologise. My statement is that East Cork was first selected.
The statement that I had anything to do with the selection of a site for the sugar beet factory is baseless. I have stated so in the constituency concerned, Carlow and Kilkenny, during the election there, which shows that I have a little more courage than the Minister.
Upon what does Deputy Corry base his statement?
Shut up! I accept Deputy Cosgrave's statement fully— the statement that he had nothing to do with the fact that East Cork was first selected and the sugar beet factory happened afterwards to be changed to his own constituency. I accept that fully. Now, to come back to the amendment, it was put in for one definite purpose. If Deputy MacDermot had any knowledge of farming he would not have put it in. He certainly would not have submitted the amendment if he had any knowledge of the factors which induce manufacturers to put up sugar beet factories. People first look for land suitable for growing beet and secondly for tillage farmers prepared to grow it. They will not look to a ranching county where nothing is grown but bullocks. Where farmers are prepared to grow beet, that is where you will see the factories being established. No considerations as to whether Irish fuel is near or far will move a factory from a tillage to a bullock ranching area.
I think this amendment is ridiculous, inasmuch as this Party has given the most definite guarantees by their own actions in regard to the use of Irish fuel. Some people might say we have gone so far as to force the use of Irish fuel where it may not at the moment be suitable. I think the action of this Party in regard to Irish fuel should be sufficient guarantee for any man, except the type of man who comes here with a bee in his bonnet, like Deputy MacDermot to-night. His attitude here is "I will do something now that will let the Roscommon people see that at last I have remembered that I represent Roscommon and that I do not represent Paris or London."
The Minister for Industry and Commerce was concerned to know why we are supporting this amendment. This Bill deals with sugar, for which a considerable sum of money leaves the country every year. The manufacture of sugar here is going to cost the people a very considerable sum annually. We were told that the fact that we are going to make sugar ourselves, even though it costs a considerable sum, means the saving of a large amount of money that ordinarily goes out of the country and that was a primary consideration. If Ministers had come in here to-night, having examined this amendment, and proved to us that the use of Irish coal would entail a heavier proportionate cost in the manufacture of sugar——
I did not say that.
I said that if Ministers came in here and told us that, I would be perfectly prepared to withdraw my support from the amendment. Sugar and coal are the two items. The Ministers apparently like the sugar but they object to coal. What is their objection to coal? Is it that the sugar is going to cost more if they use Irish instead of foreign coal?
On the contrary, I would say that the use of Irish coal would reduce the cost. Our whole point is that this amendment is unnecessary.
The fact is that we are going to pay twice the cost of sugar.
No.
We have been informed that sugar costs 10/- a cwt. delivered on the quays while the manufacture of it here is going to cost us 20/- a cwt.
With beet at 20/- a ton the German price is 10/- landed on the quays in Dublin.
I do not know the meaning of the Deputy's interjection.
If the farmers are prepared to produce beet at the continental price, there is no reason why the price of sugar should not accordingly be reduced.
I will ask Deputies not to interject useless, silly remarks —absolutely silly remarks. Is Deputy Gibbons standing for 20/- a ton for beet?
No, I am not.
Very good. Then, sit down. We are dealing with a business proposition and we want no nonsense about it. I know more about the whole business than the Deputy. If he thinks he knows anything about it, let him make his speech later. At least let him stop talking nonsense about 20/- a ton for beet. Is anyone standing for that price?
Are you standing for it?
Certainly not.
Then why talk about 20/- a ton?
I got an interjection about 20/- a ton. What is the meaning of it? Is the Deputy looking for a certificate to qualify him for a mental home? Let us understand one another about this; it is a business proposition.
Is the Deputy losing his temper?
The Deputy is too well bred to lose his temper.
I have no patience with nonsense; we do not live long enough to be patient with nonsense.
What I said was that beet was 20/- a ton in Germany.
The Deputy can get up and explain what he means.
Mr. Gibbons rose.
Deputy Cosgrave to proceed.
We were told here that the cost of producing sugar was 20/- a cwt. and that sugar can be landed on the quays in Dublin at 10/- a cwt. We have to make up the difference. That 10/- a cwt. is the cost of the subsidy or the protection or whatever Deputies like to call it given to the sugar made in the Saorstát.
It is not.
That 10/- is the sum which the people of this country must pay in order to manufacture sugar here. If the Minister came in here this evening and told us there was a higher proportionate cost involved in this amendment I would be prepared to give him my support there. Will the Minister now tell us what is the additional cost of this amendment on the sugar production? What I am concerned about is this: is the additional cost a higher proportionate cost than the cost of producing sugar here? Is the coal going to cost twice as much— that is, is the price of Irish coal, Arigna or Wolfhill, twice as much as imported fuel? It does not matter what the item is, whether it is sugar or coal or silk hats or anything else brought in here. I am talking according to the Minister's own psychology. If you are to stop money from leaving the country I want to know what your defence is about protecting sugar produced in Ireland and taking a different line with regard to coal?
The use of Irish coal in the Carlow factory has considerably reduced the cost of producing sugar. Using Irish fuel would be much cheaper than foreign coal. But that has got nothing to do with it. The only question is whether it is necessary to insert in the Articles of Association of this company a provision of the kind suggested as it means nothing. In so far as Irish fuel should be used it will be used. The only thing the amendment will effect is that in certain circumstances unnecessary licences would have to be issued.
And that is a hardship.
It is unnecessary. The insertion of this amendment would mean consequential legislation and that would be entirely unnecessary. The Government has got full and adequate powers in relation to this company to secure Irish fuel where Irish fuel is available. I do not believe myself that the company will want any pushing to make them use Irish fuel because it will be found in certain circumstances, much cheaper to use Irish fuel than to use imported fuel.
Then the Government is wasting the time of the House.
The Deputy is doing it.
No. Having found that this amendment is to be pushed to a division we now get all this information. What is the case against this amendment? There is no necessity for a single licence if we are to take the Minister's statement as being true for the cost of Irish fuel will be lower. The fuel costing less than imported fuel, and it having been found that Irish fuel is an economic proposition in Carlow it will be equally an economic proposition in Arigna. What is the objection to the amendment? Is it because Deputy MacDermot proposed it? Is it because they had forgotten to put it in themselves? Is it because they have an objection to the use of Irish coal?
No, but because the amendment is badly drafted.
Was there not time to consult the draftsman's office and have a properly drafted amendment provided?
It is not necessary.
The amendment reads:—"(g) that except under licence from the Minister, all fuel used in the Company's factories shall be of Irish origin." Badly drafted! I would agree to let the two Ministers go outside the House and spend until 9 o'clock drafting an amendment, and a better one if they could, and I would be prepared to guarantee that they would not produce as good an amendment as this, or that the intelligentsia that they have behind them on the Fianna Fáil Benches would do it either. What is wrong with the amendment? Badly drafted! It was out of order a few minutes ago. It was going to increase the cost. That is what we were told in the beginning, and now we are told that the Irish fuel is cheaper. I hold we have as good a right to help the Irish coal industry as to help the Irish sugar industry.
And we will do it.
When I first read this amendment on the Order Paper I was of opinion that it was an amendment which would not be accepted by the Minister. But after hearing the speeches of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce I have come to the conclusion that this is an amendment which on the Minister's own admission can and ought to be accepted. The Minister for Industry and Commerce waxed eloquent on the fact, as he said, that this would create a hardship at the very initiation of this industry. He showed great solicitude, if I might so call it, in asking the Deputies not to place any undue hardships so far as these three beet factories were concerned. I would like to ask the Minister this straight question: What concern has he ever shown for the industries like the railways which at the moment are giving employment to anything from 15,000 to 17,000 men? What concern have they shown by placing upon the railways by their tariff policy an imposition of something like 5/- a ton on coal?
I do not know what this has to do with the amendment— that is a matter that the Deputies opposite have been raising.
When the Minister answers that question he will get some little consideration from me, but when he makes the statement here and endeavours to draw a red herring across the trail and to impute dishonest motives to the Opposition, I would like to remind him that during the last General Election all the dead walls of the country were covered over with bills saying that they were the only Party who were out for protection and the use of Irish industries. We had a statement from the President himself, a very emphatic statement, that we should not import anything from outside. We were told that we were to employ all the means and all the resources at our disposal in the way of native materials, to erect our own houses, to make our own clothes and boots, and every other thing that the Irish people use. Now here is coal, an article that can be procured in Ireland, on the Minister's own admission. The amendment only asks the Minister to see before these factories are set up that a clause will be inserted in the Bill having for its purpose the use of Irish coal in the beet factories which are going to be set up in this country. I do not know what is the objection to the amendment and I do not know why that objection is coming specially from back-benchers like Deputy Corry and the rest of them, except that they regard it as an impertinence on the part of a West Britisher and an Imperialist like Deputy MacDermot to introduce an amendment. According to Fianna Fáil he is a West Britisher and an Imperialist.
Is it the considered view of the Fianna Fáil Party, including the Executive Council, that a man like Deputy MacDermot, or as I suppose myself, is not entitled to put down such an amendment? We must wait on the pleasure of Fianna Fáil to do anything in the way of protecting Irish industries and advocating the use of Irish minerals.
As Deputy Cosgrave said, if the Minister had any little particle of moral courage in dealing with the amendment and stated that this would unduly handicap those in charge of the factories in carrying on their business in a proper and efficient manner, I, as one who knows a little about business, would be the first to adopt the Minister's viewpoint. Instead of that, a childish attitude is being adopted. It seems that nothing good can come from the Opposition in this House, according to the Government. It is about time that we were a little more broad-minded, a little more sympathetic towards the views of our opponents, whether we are Cumann na nGaedheal or Centre Party or Labour Party or any other Party. It would be better for all concerned and for the interests of the country. I would remind the Minister that it is the considered policy of his Party to do all they possibly can to promote the use of articles of Irish manufacture. There is no use in the Minister saying that this is an irritating amendment and that its acceptance would mean consequential legislation. The Minister showed very little concern in connection with the irritating provisions that he put in before he issued licences to people in this country. I enumerated many of them here, especially in connection with the importation of materials used in the building of houses and on matters of that kind. I got very little sympathy from the Minister when I raised such a question. I think the Minister could accept the amendment in all good faith. If, in his opinion, it will not be in the best interest of the factories to use Irish coal, that it would place an extra financial burden upon the factories, he can, under the amendment, if he so desires, allow coal to be imported under licence. I do not see any difficulty in accepting the amendment. It will be a gesture to the Opposition and to the mover of the amendment, Deputy MacDermot, who, in my opinion, no matter what he may be, is here to do the best he can in the interests of the country.
Deputy Coburn wants the Minister to accept the amendment as a kind of peace offering, because Deputy MacDermot, as he said, has a West-British tinge. He wants the Minister to accept the amendment simply as a peace-offering in order that we might all become good friends here. I suggest that it is absolutely waste of time and ridiculous to put such an amendment on the Order Paper. In the first place, a few weeks ago when the Government brought in a measure to provide for the more extended use of Irish peat we were sneered and laughed at by the Vice-President of Deputy MacDermot's Party. He said it was all nonsense, it was all a joke, it was all politics, and we should not take it seriously. Simply because the Government are making provision for the more extended use of peat in this country, it was absolutely all nonsense to say that this country was going to come down to the burning of Irish fuel. Deputy Dillon said the thing was going to be an absolute failure. The members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party looked at it in the same way and made practically the same statements. They laughed and sneered at the idea of the Government providing for peat being used in a more extensive way in the country. That was one thing that was not feasible, and was not acceptable to the Cumann na nGaedheal or Centre Party. Later on it was suggested to extend the beet factories in this country so that we should manufacture all our own sugar rather than import it. Even that was not acceptable to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party or the Centre Party. We had the suggestion from Deputy Mulcahy that the whole thing should be postponed for the present. Now because the Government have gone ahead with a big scheme for the furtherance of the use of Irish fuel, and for the provision of factories for the manufacture of sugar, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and the Centre Party unite and say: "We will see that nothing is used but Irish fuel in these factories." It is marvellous how leopards can change their spots. There is a suggestion by some individuals that certain people should wear blue shirts. Will they make the proposal that these people should wear nothing else but blue shirts? That would be something similar to the proposal in this amendment. This Government has promoted the use of Irish material in every part of this State. An atmosphere has been created for the use of Irish goods that we had not in the country since 1919. Cumann na nGaedheal had never attempted to create such an atmosphere when they were in power. "Buy English goods, buy Scotch whiskey," is the suggestion of Deputies opposite. That was suggested in this House by a Deputy who is now sitting on the opposite benches. Simply because this Government has created an atmosphere for the buying of Irish goods the leopards change their spots and come forward with the proposal that these factories should use nothing else except Irish coal. By using the methods of the sulky schoolboy they are going to prove that they stand for Irish industry at long last. The Minister has assured the House that Irish fuel is at present being used in the Carlow factory. He assured Deputy Cosgrave of that. That did not satisfy the well-bred Deputy, of course. He wanted to get his speech in. He wanted the taunt to be thrown. He wanted Deputy MacDermot and himself to unite in this for the common good, and in the interests of Irish fuel. He assured the House that it could be used in a more economical way than foreign coal. The Minister pointed out that it was the policy of the Government to have Irish coal and peat used as far as possible, but these Deputies want it in black and white. It is well known to everybody that the use of Irish manufactured goods is one of the first planks in the programme of the Government. It is not necessary to insert such a provision as this here, as if the Government were weak on the point, as if even Cumann na nGaedheal and the Centre Party were weak on the point—that it should be put down in black and white that nothing else is to be used. We should expect in this country, once and for all, that Irish manufactured goods, wherever possible, will be used by the people of this country. That is what this Government has made possible. That is what is enshrined in this Bill for the manufacture of sugar from beet, and that is the policy that the Government is going to pursue despite the attitude of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.
For fear the leopard might change his spots, I shall deal, first of all, with the last few comments of the speaker who has just sat down. I should like to draw his attention to a paragraph in the speech of the Minister introducing this Bill. He said: "Let us assume that we imported coal for these factories to the value of £80,000. That again is an outside and generous assumption because means have already been developed in the existing Carlow factory for the purpose of utilising Castlecomer coal and it is being utilised there at the moment very satisfactorily." What then is the objection to this amendment?
I despair of explaining it to the Deputy.
The Deputy opposite who has just spoken is one of the most voluble Deputies in this House and he says the least. I have been following him closely to know if he would say anything, but a man who speaks and knows nothing about the subject he attempts to deal with cannot be expected to do anything else. He told us that we on these benches could not grow beet. The first experiment made in beet growing in this country was in 1925. I have an official copy of the report of that experiment. If it is examined it will be found to contain the names of Deputies on these benches.
I suggest it is high time that the Deputy returned to the matter of the amendment which is under discussion.
The Minister did not interfere when his own back bencher was speaking.
I am only suggesting that we should confine the discussion to the amendment.
I am only dealing with this matter in passing. We are accused of being opposed to the production, in this country, of sugar from home-grown beet but here we have a monument to the efforts made by Deputies on this side of the House, not only in growing beet but in producing sugar from beet grown in this country and we were doing that when Deputies opposite were still sowing their wild oats.
I suppose Deputy Belton believes he was the first to do that.
My name is here as growing one acre. You will not find the names of Deputies opposite there. I find the name of an ex-Cork Deputy, Deputy Noonan, there also but not the name of Deputy Corry.
The question of what names are on that document is not relevant to the matter of the use of Irish coal in this factory.
I was only making a passing use of this document to show that it was we who initiated the production of sugar in this country. And the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the last occasion that he spoke on this Bill, acknowledged that his Party were wrong in their attitude and that his colleague the Minister for Finance was wrong in stigmatising the Carlow factory as a white elephant.
The Deputy must confine himself to the amendment before the Committee, which deals with the use of Irish fuel. The whole history of the sugar beet industry cannot be gone into on this amendment.
I accept your ruling, but there has been a very wide discussion.
The Chair wants no "buts" in this matter.
Very well. It is no harm to have some sympathy for the use of whatever Irish fuel in production of sugar can be used, when the Bill before us provides, not for subsidies, as the Minister said, except indirectly, but for a constant tariff of 130 per cent. Now Deputy Gibbons is, apparently, against the use, or is against the stipulation that we should use, Irish fuel, notwithstanding the fact that the factory is going to be given a tariff or subsidy to the extent of 130 per cent. He seems to have no sympathy for the use of Irish coal.
Deputy Belton's deduction is quite wrong.
If the Deputy says my figures are wrong, all he has to do is to make a little calculation. If we produce sugar at 23/- a cwt., and could buy imported sugar for 10/- a cwt. and, in order to protect our own manufacture or to keep out the cheap sugar, we put on a tariff of 130 per cent., then we are taxing the consumers of this country to the tune of 130 per cent. We cannot put up a sugar beet factory in every constituency, like the factory in the Deputy's constituency, nor are we expected to grow sugar beet in the bogs or in the moors of the midlands.
Or round about the coal-fields either.
The Deputy is referring to what his colleague, Deputy Hogan from Clare, referred to yesterday, when he discovered there was gold there. We are not rambling down there at present. Places where we produce Irish fuel will not, as a rule, be centres for the production of Irish beet, but they will have to pay the 130 per cent. on their sugar. Why not give them a quid pro quo? What are Deputies opposite objecting to in that, and what is ridiculous about Deputy MacDermot's amendment?
That is not the question.
Will the Minister accept it?
No.
If the Minister says he is going to accept it I shall finish, but if not I shall have to go on. The meaning I took from Deputy Gibbons' interjection was that in the production of sugar from beet, the utilising of Irish fuel, or making mandatory the use of Irish fuel, would so put up the cost that you could only give the farmers 21/- a ton for the beet grown. Deputy Gibbons tried something like that on the last day by a kind of side wind.
On a point of explanation, I did not say anything of the sort. I said here quite clearly that from experiments that had been made in the industry with which I am very actively associated, as to the comparative cost and suitability of Irish coal as compared with foreign, the advantages were altogether in favour of Irish coal. It is the more economical proposition both for steam and suction gas as well.
Well then what is the objection to the amendment?
During a debate on the Sugar Bill here the Deputy quoted statistics in respect of the cost of production of beet in Germany. He mentioned 20/- a ton for beet and 10/- a cwt. for sugar. I asked if he stood for 20/- a ton as the price the Irish farmer would get for his beet.
I accept the Deputy's statement, and I am sure the Deputy will accept mine. The figures I gave were German figures, 21/-, and a decimal per ton for beet. The German factory which paid that was able to turn out sugar at 8/6 a cwt. Here we are getting the advantage of 23/- a cwt. for sugar, and the farmer is only getting 6/- for his beet.
The Deputy's figures are all wrong. He is mixing up the export price of German beet sugar with the price the factory gets.
I am giving the Minister the result of an experiment. Does the Minister contradict that?
It is quite irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the amendment.
Does the Minister contradict that the price he proposes to give the farmer is 6/- a cwt. for the sugar that will be produced out of a certain quantity of beet?
It will not be produced out of coal anyhow. The amendment deals with coal.
The Minister is caught now. He did not get away with it, and he wants to get back to the amendment. No Deputy who spoke on this amendment rambled so far away from it as the Minister did. Now he wants to shelter behind the amendment when he cannot get away with it. One-sixth is a rough and ready calculation of the product of sugar from beet. The farmer is getting roughly about 6/- per cwt. for the sugar and the manufacturer is going to get 17/-. Is not that the position?
A discussion on the cost of production of sugar from beet is not in order.
What about the farmer who cannot grow beet, but who may have a bog? What about that famous proposal of the Minister to produce good stone turf at 10/- a ton? What about that? If the Minister can do that and utilise turf in the manufacture of sugar he will cut down costs. The Minister knows that if he went into any bog in the country, and looked for turf at that price, well, he would see a boghole perhaps for the first time. There should be no need to debate this proposal of Deputy MacDermot's. The ultra-protectionists say "we favour it", but every one of them when pushed back into his corner says he will not accept it, and that he is going to vote against it. No one has given a reason.
The green shirts!
No, the rainbow chasers. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment, or give a reason why he will not accept it. We have heard of the buoyancy of the coal position, to quote a stereotyped phrase of the Minister for Finance. In introducing this measure he informed the House that we were using Castlecomer coal successfully; yet the amendment will not be accepted. All the criticism was levelled at this side of the House to try to paint the picture that we were against the production of beet; that we were against the production of sugar; that we only introduced this to clog the wheels of progress in regard to sugar production. It is we grew beet first. It is we first started the wheels of sugar production in this country. Let Deputy Corry show where he ever grew sugar beet in East Cork.
On a point of explanation, Deputy Belton stated here in my absence a while ago that Mr. Noonan grew beet in 1925 and I did not. I should like to inform Deputy Belton that I grew beet too, and grew beet when he was a salaried civil servant. I will not "mug" with a fellow who came out of the Civil Service and went back to farming.
To prove what I have said, I have here for the County of Cork a list of those who carried out experiments in sugar beet growing for the year 1925, which was the year they were officially carried out. Deputy Corry's name is not here, nor the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, nor that of the Minister for Finance. They would not know a field of beet from a field of oats.
Would the Deputy now tell us what Party he was in in 1925? Can he remember?
Will the Minister stop biting the hand that fed him and brought him in here, when his chief told him to dump his arms?
The history of political Parties, and the method of their introduction to the Dáil, has nothing to do with the use of Irish coal.
If the Ministers would only conduct themselves they would not draw this, but if they want it they will get it, and they know it.
The Chair might have something to say in that matter.
There is a statement here in connection with me, which I have contradicted. I was not anxious at any time to get my name on lists. I grew beet when Deputy Belton was in the Civil Service.
The Deputy has already so informed the House.
Deputy Belton has not withdrawn his statement.
Here is the official publication from the Department of Agriculture, showing those who grew beet experimentally under the orders of the Department of Agriculture, from four or five different kinds of seed, in the year 1925. On the basis of those experiments the sugar factory in Carlow was started, and sugar production in this country began its career. I have said, and I repeat, that not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party gave any assistance in that experiment. I challenge any one member of the Party to stand up and say he did so, or point to his name on this list. I said that Deputy Corry's name is not on it, and I repeat that.
That list is not in order on this amendment, as the Deputy has been told twice.
I presume that the people who gave assistance in those experiments were paid for it. If Deputy Belton grew wheat I presume he was paid for growing it.
To use a sporting expression, that is definitely below the belt. It is not worthy of any member of this House. Deputy Belton was not paid for it. Deputy Belton grew another acre that year at his own expense; he sent to Germany and got special seed. A supporter of the Deputy's own Party, Con Donovan, now Instructor for Louth, can verify that. I got no use for that beet. I offered it to dairy men to feed their cows, and they would not take it. Deputy Harris has not helped in the development of sugar production in this country. He was rainbow chasing. He would not take an oath that became an empty formula afterwards. We followed the substance while they followed the shadows.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Keating, John.
- Kent, William Rice.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Donovan and Finlay; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Amendment declared lost.
Schedule and Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Friday, 4th August, 1933.
Before we take the Land Bond Bill, it seems to me that some reference should be made to what I think was an abuse of the privileges of this House. Certain public servants, who are immediately concerned with the preparation of legislative proposals and with the subsequent administration of such proposals as become law, are required, as part of their official duties, to be present here during the debates—very much against their own inclinations, I am sure. That was the position under the last Government, as it is under this. These officers attended just as frequently and in as great numbers then as now. For the purpose of this attendance, special accommodation has been provided for them and provided in such a way as clearly demarcates them from the rest of the House and excludes them from the ambit of the debates which take place here. They do not participate in these debates directly or indirectly. They have no part in them and should not be made parties to them. They are compelled, as I have said, by the duties of their official position to come here and, when they do come here, they should have the assurance, which hitherto has not been necessary, that they will be treated with ordinary good manners and not be treated as an exhibit or held up to the public gaze as a spectacle. That should not be done on any occasion whatsoever, and, least of all, it should not be done in order to score a cheap debating point.
In the course of his speech, Deputy Cosgrave, who, as President of an Executive Council, occupied these Benches and was first responsible for bringing these officers here, referred to their presence in this Chamber and, with his habitual ill-manners, pointing to them, used such expressions as: "Look at them! There they are— enough of them to form fours!" I am submitting to you, a Chinn Comhairle, that those observations of Deputy Cosgrave were grossly improper and should be withdrawn.
By virtue of established procedure expert advisers from Government Departments are here for the convenience of Ministers dealing with legislative and other matters. That custom has the sanction of the years behind it. As the officials are not technically in the House, they take no part in the business of the House and, as the Minister stated, should not be referred to. Reference was made to them to-day. It struck me that the reference, while, perhaps, somewhat frivolous, was not meant to be offensive. The Chair, certainly, did not interpret it in that sense.
Is it improper, sir, to make these references for the purpose of scoring a debating point?
No person in this State has a greater appreciation of the value and of the dignity which should attach to public officials than I. I have had a longer association with officials of State than any other person in the State. I have had very great assistance from them. I have had nothing to complain of in connection with that assistance and my attitude towards them during the time I was in office was exactly the same as my attitude is when I am out of office. I had no intention whatever of scoring a cheap debating point at their expense. Quite the opposite. In the course of my remarks, which were certainly not intended to be frivolous and which dealt with the subject matter before the House, I rather resented that their expert advice was not availed of, and it was as an objection to that course on the part of the Minister that I mentioned the matter at all. These officials come here after office hours. Those of them who assemble in the Gallery which is provided for them are of invaluable assistance to the Ministers. They were invaluable to the Ministers during my time of office, and, certainly if I am any judge, they are of very much more assistance to the present Ministry. I am not, sir, one of those who has any appreciation of the manners of the Minister. That is all I will say on that subject. In so far as the officials are concerned, it is not necessary for me to make the statement I have made because I am convinced that, after the association I had with them for so long when I was in office and the courtesy I have had from them and that they have had from me since I left office, it does not require any explanation in the House. If the Minister had done what I advised him to do, that is, if he had availed of the assistance of the officials, there would have been no necessity for the debate having gone on so long.
Again, sir, I ask is it proper or within the rules of the House to make references to people who may be present but who are not members of the House? Were Deputy Cosgrave's observations in order, no matter with what motive he made them?
This is not the first occasion on which references have been made in the House by Deputies to the civil servants sitting in the enclosure to advise Ministers. The Chair is satisfied with the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I put it to the House that all parties should refrain from referring to any civil servant who may be present in such capacity in future.