Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Jul 1959

Vol. 176 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Grass Meal (Production) Amendment Bill, 1959—Money Resolution.

I move:

That, for the purpose of any Act of the present session to authorise the Minister for Industry and Commerce to promote a limited company for the acquisition, drainage and cultivation of bogland in the Bangor Erris area, the processing of grass and other plants and the carrying on of kindred and incidental activities, to apply with amendments the Grass Meal (Production) Act, 1953, to the company and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of the expenses incurred by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the administration of such Act;

(2) the advance out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of—

(i) the money payable by the subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of Min Fhéir (1959) Teoranta as consideration for the allotment and issue to them of shares in the share capital of the company in pursuance of such Act, and

(ii) all moneys from time to time required by the Minister for Finance (a) to meet payments required to be made by him in respect of any shares subscribed for by him under such Act or (b) to meet sums which may become payable under any guarantee given by him under such Act;

(3) the charge on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of (a) the principal of and interest on any securities issued by the Minister for Finance for the purpose of borrowing under such Act and (b) the expenses incurred in connection with the issues of such securities; and

(4) the repayment to the Central Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of advances out of that Fund or the growing produce thereof to meet sums which may become payable under any guarantee given by the Minister for Finance under such Act and which have not been repaid to that Fund in accordance with such Act.

Can the Minister tell us what is the limit, or is there any limit, to the outlay which may be undertaken on foot of this Money Resolution?

The provisions under the Bill contain a limit of £200,000 by way of share capital to be subscribed by the Minister for Finance.

Is there a guarantee provision as well?

The limit is £200,000.

Is the Minister aware that on the figures given by the directors of the company 75 were to be their permanent employment potential and that would almost work out at £3,000 per man?

That figure of 75 relates to roughly 5 months of the year; the figure 150 relates to the remaining 7 months.

Average that, and what does it come to? It is considerably more than any figures we had last week.

I want to put some specific questions to the Minister on this Resolution in view of the fact that he proposes to advance £200,000 to a company to be set up for the purposes of the cultivation of bogland, the growing of grass thereon and the conversion of that grass into grass meal. The first question is: are the results of any experiments in the growing of grass on blanket bog, other than those in operation by Peatlands, Glenamoy, available to him? The second question is: are those results such as afford complete satisfaction with the growth of grass as such? And the third question is: is he satisfied that the substance of the grass so grown is suitable for conversion into grass meal?

There have been prior experiments on bog of a similar nature to the bog which it is now proposed to develop. These experiments were satisfactory in relation both to the quality and the quantity of the grass grown. As well as that, the information available to the committee set up to examine whether or not this proposal should be revived had available to it expert evidence to the effect that the quality of the grass would be suitable for the purpose of the grass meal project. I am satisfied that, as a result of the information at my disposal, the project is a suitable one.

And that the substance of the grass grown is such as to make it suitable for conversion into grass meal?

I am satisfied as to that.

I wonder are the terms of this Resolution wide enough to permit whatever body is set up to administer this business to use their resources for the consumption of this grass in situ in the form of silage or by the feeding of livestock if it proves, as I believe it will prove, to be ridiculously and fantastically uneconomic to convert this material into grass meal. I think the Minister will find on inquiry, and I think it is right to put it on record, that when the Minister first became Parliamentary Secretary in the year 1951 he was charged with responsibility for the undeveloped areas and I wrote to him and warned him then that somebody would try to foist this fraud over upon him. I urged him to get adequate advice which would forewarn him of his peril. Since then the inter-Party Government established a peatland research station at Glenamoy.

This, surely, should have arisen on the Second Reading and not on this Money Resolution. The Money Resolution deals with the money to be voted for the project set out.

I am asking is the Money Resolution wide enough to permit of the money being used in a certain way? I suppose I could, if I wanted to, move to amend the Money Resolution. Surely I can ask what the Money Resolution permits the Minister to do?

Very well. Since then the Peatlands Research Station has been operating in Glenamoy for the last four years, despite the fact that it was formally opened only last week. During the four years it has been in operation some evidence has emerged that it is not impossible that one might be able to use an area of blanket bog of this kind for the maintenance of livestock by preserving the surplus grass economically—not by drying it and converting it into grassmeal but by ensiling it and allowing it to be consumed in situ. If anything is to be salvaged out of this, it is possible that salvage might be effected in that way. All I am concerned to ensure is that, if there is £200,000 of public money to be poured into this business, we should have some prospect of recovering some of it if and when the grassmeal project collapses, as it most certainly will.

I just want to draw the Minister's attention to a document to which he drew my attention earlier today when we were discussing the Undeveloped Areas (Amendment) Bill. I refer to the Programme of Economic Expansion, page 40, Section 108, in which it is stated:—

The Government favour the system of private ownership of industry and will not be disposed to enter any manufacturing field in which private enterprise is already operating successfully.

This project is, I suggest, in direct competition with the eight or ten firms already——

Surely that should have been raised on the Second Reading?

It is not proper to this Money Resolution.

If we can talk about silage surely we can talk about this?

I do not think silage is in order either under this.

I was only taking my example from previous speakers.

If Deputies will refer to Section 7, subsection (2) of the original Act they will see there the words, "drainage and cultivation of bogland and the processing of grass and other plants for sale." That would include other uses of grass when grown.

But for sale.

The objects of the company are stated in the memorandum of association: "The principal functions of the company shall be the acquisition, drainage and cultivation of bogland, and the processing of grass and other plants for sale, including, in particular, the manufacture of grass meal." The processing of grass for sale would certainly cover silage in my opinion.

Yes, but would it cover silage for feeding to livestock belonging to the company? You cannot sell silage because you cannot transport it. Would the term "processing of grass" cover its conversion into silage and subsequent conversion into livestock? There is a possibility there of economic operation and, if it does not cover it, I suggest to the Minister that he should take steps to make that operation available to whatever body operates this scheme and widen the Money Resolution sufficiently now to make that possible. If the Minister cannot do it today, he can do it at some later date.

There is a provision, I think, in the Principal Act whereby, if a company wants to go outside its stated scope of activity, it can apply to the Minister. The Minister, having received such an application, will publish the purpose of the application in Iris Oifigiúil and, after a stated period, he may then permit the company to take on other activities.

This Money Resolution is wide enough to permit the Minister to do that?

I think so.

Might I ask the Minister whether or not all the objectives contemplated, and for which money is now being voted, will be achieved by the Peatlands experimental station as at present constituted and as at present operated?

I do not think so.

I cannot answer why, off-hand like that, but I think this is a specific activity which is better entrusted to an organisation such as it is proposed to set up under the Bill.

Will the Minister tell us who the directors will be?

Not at this stage.

We shall come to that later on.

I wonder would the Minister mind a reference that was made at this morning's meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that certain Deputies, including Ministers, are not audible?

I wish I had the carrying power of Deputy Sweetman.

It is useful sometimes.

Question put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.
Top
Share