Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 1962

Vol. 198 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Sugar Manufacture (Amendment) Bill, 1962—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Deputies will recall from my Financial Statement to Dáil Éireann on 10th April last, that I made a provision of £½m. in the Capital Budget 1962-63 for the food processing project of Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann. I mentioned at the time the expectation that the company's plans for food processing would soon reach the stage at which the Government would be asked to provide additional share capital. The main purpose of this Bill is to enable that to be done.

Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teoranta, was established in 1933, under the Sugar Manufacture Act of that year. Among the newly established company's tasks were the acquisition, erection and operation of sugar factories in the State. As beet growing and farmers' relations with the company developed, Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann extended its activities by degrees into other spheres which were associated with the beet sugar industry. Thus, in addition to manufacturing various types of sugar, the company has for years past engaged in the production of ground limestone, of grassmeal and agricultural machinery, in the compounding of fertilisers and pioneer work in the experimental development of reclaimed bogland for agricultural purposes.

In the Programme for Economic Expansion published in November, 1958, it was stated that the Government would encourage State-sponsored concerns to extend their activities into projects related to their main spheres of operation and to test the profitability of new lines and new markets. The response of the directors of Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann was quick and wholehearted when in 1959 they embarked on their food-processing enterprise. Up to the present, the company's investment in processed food production, including research and development, exceeds £2.3 million. The company has introduced to this country the new method of accelerated freeze drying and has also sponsored a new technique for producing “instant potatoes”. Outside its headquarters, the company's food processing and allied activities are located as follows:—

Mallow—Accelerated freeze drying plant—the first and still the largest in the world. Air drying plant.

Carlow—Research and development. New processing factory. Air drying and canning plant.

Tuam—Instant potato flake producing plant of most advanced design and equipment.

Thurles—Mushroom farm and central packing station.

The area under potatoes, vegetables and fruit for 1962/63 was some 4,500 acres. At present over 750 persons— including some trainees—are employed at the various plants, apart from some 120 employees of Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann who are supplying services to the food division and some 250 workers engaged in building and construction work.

Are we not to get in the ordinary way copies of the speech the Minister is reading? I thought my polite quip on Thursday, in the other case, would have brought it to mind and that the Minister's private secretary would have made it available.

We shall try to get them. I overlooked that.

The Minister for Finance should not have to attend personally to such details.

There are not many figures in it.

The products are destined mainly for export and sales to date have been effected in England, Germany, Holland, Iceland, Switzerland, Channel Islands and Africa.

Only a small proportion of total output is being retained for the home market. Two of the company's new products, however—instant potatoes, of which the company is the sole producer here, and processed peas— are already on sale on the consumer home market and are, I understand, doing well.

As the standard of living improves in the more advanced countries, public taste tends to seek a greater variety in food. When this can be offered in a form that can be prepared for the table quickly and with a minimum of labour it carries an added sales attraction. Public demand is thus shifting to processed foodstuffs and the amount of farm produce which is being marketed in processed form is increasing. There is every indication that this trend will continue. Our soil and climate and our labour force already constitute valuable initial advantages in food production so that great possibilities are open to this country of establishing itself in an expanding external market for processed foods. The Government believes that this opportunity should be seized as quickly as possible. Private firms are already engaged in this field but in order that it should be exploited as fully as possible the Government have welcomed and encouraged the plans of Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann.

The dangers for an agricultural country such as ours of not keeping up with other countries in this method of marketing agricultural produce will be obvious. The benefits of success in this field are no less clear. Not alone will new industrial employment be provided in the processing plants but farmers—particularly the small farmers—in the area concerned, would be offered stimulating prospects of a steady and expanding market for the raw materials needed by the processing plants.

What is involved in the plan of Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann is, in effect, organisation on a scale not previously attempted of an outlet for horticultural produce at economic guaranteed prices. The company hope, and I share their hope, that to the extent that their plants are located in, or draw upon the produce of, the less developed areas, they will foster a spirit of self-confidence and new initiative there, thus enabling those areas to make an effective contribution to rural development.

The AFD process holds possibilities, too, for our fishing industry.

These various possibilities strike one immediately but there are other advantages, too, to be had from the successful implementation of the company's plans that may not strike one at first glance. For instance, the industry would open up an outlet for high-grade technical and professional skills and should serve as a valuable training ground for educating our young people in modern industrial techniques.

Then there is the fact that developing the food processing industry encourages other native industries such as those engaged in manufacture of packing materials of various kinds — boxes, cases, cartons, jute and paper sack and polythene laminates. Finally, any move towards competitive export of our own products in processed form, rather than in their natural state, is to be welcomed.

It is now clear, however, that if Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann's initiative in starting this industry is to be fully supported and sustained, further substantial capital investment will be necessary. Competition in this field is particularly keen so that, if we are to capture an adequate part of the market, it is of great importance that we establish our position as rapidly as possible.

As most of you will be aware, the company has financed its manifold activities up to now without any addition to the share or debenture capital raised in its earlier days. Apart from the few shares issued to subcribers to the memorandum and articles of association or as qualifying shares to directors, the capital raised consisted of the 500,000 ordinary shares of £1 each issued to the Minister for Finance, on which the company has been paying a 5 per cent. dividend for many years past, and the public issue of 500,000 6 per cent. cumulative preference shares of £1 each. A further £1m. was raised from the public by way of State guaranteed debentures.

I should add here that a bonus issue of shares was made in 1961 to bring the nominal value of the ordinary shares rather nearer their real value. This bonus issue brought the issued ordinary share capital to £1.5m. and the total issued share capital, preference and ordinary, up to the limit of £2m. permitted by the Sugar Manufacture Act, 1933. The bonus issue did not, of course, increase the money actually invested in the company.

The stage has now arrived where the company has found that further desirable expansion of food processing is likely to be beyond its available resources. Furthermore, Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann's ordinary sugar manufacturing business itself now stands in need of certain developments involving capital outlay. This development might be hampered if the temporarily free resources which the company had applied to developing the food processing business were to remain as a continuing investment in it.

The company has therefore approached the Government with an outline of the developments it considers necessary to exploit adequately the potential of the food processing enterprise. The directors of the company are confident that, despite the keen competition which already exists in this field, the enterprise will pay its way apart altogether from the benefits it will bring to the nation's whole economy. Having carefully studied the company's proposals, the Government have concluded that Exchequer assistance should be made available for the further development of this important project. The Government feel, too, that the time has come for setting up a separate company which, while very closely associated with the sugar company, should concentrate on food processing. Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann is already studying the question of establishing a subsidiary company for this purpose.

So much for the background. As to the Bill itself, its main provisions may be summarised as follows:

(1) it provides for the increase of the authorised capital of Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann from £2m. to £5m.;

(2) it empowers the Minister for Finance to acquire, by subscription or by purchase, shares to the total amount of £3.5m. in Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teo., and/or in an "approved subsidiary company", that is, the proposed new food processing company. The 1933 Act. limited to £500,000, nominal value, the amount of shares the Minister might acquire by subscription in Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teo. This limit did not, of course, attach to the subsequent bonus shares which he obtained without subscription;

(3) it empowers the Minister for Finance to make repayable advances to the parent company or to an approved subsidiary company;

(4) it enables him also to guarantee borrowings by either body, provided the aggregate of the principal guaranteed and of the advances made does not at any time exceed £5m.

(5) it will relax the provision of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, in favour of an approved subsidiary company so as to facilitate association with co-operative societies engaged in food production or food processing where this might be economically justifiable and in the national interest.

There are also some consequential provisions and modifications of existing law.

Deputies will notice that the additional resources which the Exchequer may furnish under the Bill can be made available either directly to the new food company or channelled to it through Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann, or through a combination of these methods. This provision will provide flexibility. The exact method of financing has not yet been determined. The method may, in fact, vary from time to time. The Bill has been so drawn that Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann can be put in funds to finance expansion and improvement of the sugar factories, should further examination show this to be necessary.

At the present stage, it would be very difficult to frame precise estimates of ultimate financial requirements either as to amounts or the times they would likely fall due or to give a firm and detailed outline of the Company's eventual programme. As of now, the company envisages expanding the processing plants already named and the AFD installation. Mushroom production is to be increased and the packing station will need enlargement. Other important projects outside these centres are under consideration.

Even the plans I have just outlined should not, however, be regarded as rigid. The lessons learned as the company probes and breaks into external markets; the way in which farmers in particular areas grasp the opportunities of supplying the requisite volume, variety and quality of produce; changes in consumer tastes; Common Market developments — all these factors, and many more besides, may affect objectives. Some lines of development may be given greater emphasis than is now contemplated. As Minister for Finance, it would be my responsibility to be reasonably satisfied of the general economic soundness of the various projects as and when Exchequer assistance is sought.

By and large, I would expect that share capital would be used to cover the acquisition of fixed assets and that repayable advances and guaranteed borrowings would be used to meet working capital requirements. These latter requirements are particularly difficult to gauge in advance of adequate experience. Regarding the guaranteeing of borrowings, I would expect that this provision would facilitate the company in obtaining funds from the banks and other financial institutions so that the Exchequer should not have to supply all the finance required.

If present forecasts are fulfilled, the food company's capital requirements, whether in respect of share or loan capital, will prove eventually to be significantly more than is provided for in this Bill. It has become established practice in this type of legislation to make such provision as might cover needs for two or three years ahead so as to afford the Oireachtas a further opportunity of reviewing the matter when the new project has taken shape. At the present stage of development of this project, I should not feel justified in asking the Dáil to authorise commitments greater than those I am now proposing to the House. I would expect the present Bill, however, to cover requirements for some years ahead. As soon as the provision of further funds from the Exchequer is necessary the case would, of course, again be brought before the Oireachtas. I can promise on behalf of the Government and myself, and I would venture to say also on behalf of the Dáil, that the company can make its plans for expansion in the full confidence that a further request for finance will be sympathetically received and welcomed.

While the outlook for the processed food industry is promising, I must emphasise that the new food company to be formed will face no easy task in establishing and holding a footing in the world's highly competitive export markets. However, the qualities which Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann has displayed in bringing the project to its present stage of development inspire confidence in the ultimate success of the venture, even in the face of severe competition from well established concerns. And here I should like to add my tribute to the foresight, enthusiasm, drive and skill which the board of the company and its managerial, administrative and technical staffs have applied to their task. The Government fully appreciate all this and the important national project which the food processing enterprise constitutes has the Government's full support.

I am sure every Deputy will wish the company and its new subsidiary the merited success in the enterprises which we trust will be of great significance in the economic life of this country.

I recommend this Bill for the approval of the House.

I must congratulate the Minister, first of all, on the manner in which the baby white elephant of his colleague, Deputy MacEntee, has grown to such a lusty child. Of course, everybody who appreciated Deputy MacEntee, as he was then, knew that he was saying it for the purpose of hitting the headlines, not being able to hit them in any other way at the time.

This Bill deals with the extension of the funds to be available for the sugar company and I think it is perhaps somewhat unfortunate that the Minister decided, as apparently he has decided from the speech we have just heard, to provide the funds directly from the Exchequer. The reference he has made to guarantees does not change my view in that respect. It is clear from the manner in which Section 2 has been drafted—to increase the capital—and then Section 3—to provide that the Minister may take up the shares—that he has considered this entirely from the point of view of his action alone in providing such capital.

I think this is a mistake. One of the things from which we suffer—and I may make some reference to this later on the Estimate for the Office of the Minister of Finance—is that there is nothing like a sufficiency of Irish industrial shares to be purchased on the Irish stock exchanges. People sometimes complain bitterly of the manner in which Irish residents here invest their funds abroad, but the fact of the matter is that, if one goes to buy any substantial parcel of Irish industrial securities at the present time, they are virtually unobtainable. It has become a pattern of which we are all too well aware. People who buy Irish industrial securities buy them to hold, and that is a good thing, but they do not buy them to turn and accordingly the market in every type of Irish industrial security is all too restricted. It would very greatly assist the transfer of funds from sterling equity holdings back to Ireland if there were an adequacy of industrial holdings here.

The sugar company are a case in point where that could have been met to some degree and it is unfortunate, therefore, that this whole Bill has been framed by the Minister with the idea in his mind that, whatever funds the company require—and of course they do require funds, and should be given funds—would be made available from the Exchequer rather than that the market should be assisted in that way and the dual function put through. The Minister referred to the very vast amount at present invested by the company in food processing—a sum of £2,300,000. The accelerated freeze drying plant at Mallow must have gone fairly far on by now from its original teething stage and I should have liked the Minister to have given us some more information than he gave in that respect.

I said at the time when that was first announced in this House that I thought it was a pity it was not announced more as an effort that was then being made not to provide something that was well established and successful but to explore possibilities. Those possibilities should have been explored by now, and I think have been explored, and by and large, we can say that the results have been entirely satisfactory. With our particular problem of small farms in Ireland, the intensive use of the area and the acreage that small farmers have is essential, if we are to halt in any way the drift from the land. Food processing is one of the ways in which that intensive use can be facilitated and, to that extent, the sugar company deserve to be congratulated as fulfilling in this aspect a most useful function.

I am not very clear about the various forms of freezing and I do not know whether the Minister knows any more about it than I do. Is the AFD process the same as the quick freezing process or is it a different means altogether? Quick freezing, I understand, can be either by plate freezing or by blast freezing, and I think it would help the general public appreciation of what is being done if the Minister could indicate whether there is a difference in that respect or not. The ordinary deep freeze is, in fact, only a cold storeroom and to get the best results out of a cold storeroom, be it a household deep freeze or a hotel deep freeze, or the bigger ones in the specialised companies, I understand it is desirable that there should be some form of quick freezing first of all, either by blast or by plate freezing according as the type is concerned.

In relation particularly to fish, which the Minister has mentioned, blast freezing is, I think, accepted by the experts as being the most effective means of production. The plate quick freezing tends to split the fish, particularly salmon, and on that account is not satisfactory. Does the Minister propose that this company should come in on that aspect to any degree? I should have thought the normal course would be that Bord Iascaigh Mhara would deal with that aspect but I should like the Minister to clarify the position.

I do not quite understand the Minister's reference to the desirability of changing the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, by subsection (3) of Section 10 of this Bill. Does the Minister propose that some of the existing creamery societies will take up shares in the new subsidiary company?

The reverse.

That the subsidiary company would help to finance some of these societies and do it by way of share capital rather than by loan?

Yes. It is for that purpose.

I did not gather that from the Minister and I am glad to have it explained and to see that that is what is in his mind in that respect. However, it does accentuate even more the point I was about to make in relation to approved subsidiary companies. I do not like the system by which a State company is set up and is given power to go off and have a whole lot of children, so to speak. The subsidiary company may be desirable in certain specific instances but it is another method in some cases of avoiding the control of this House.

The Minister has perhaps read in a morning newspaper to-day the most damning indictment of him as Minister for Finance that could have been written by anyone—an indictment showing that he had completely neglected to utilise his appropriate controls as Minister for Finance because of a subsidiary company arrangement. This method here is a method of completely avoiding the giving of any information to the Dáil.

I think it essential, not merely in this case but in any case in which a State company sets up a subsidiary company, that exactly the same information about the subsidiary company should be made available to this House as is available in respect of the parent company, by question or otherwise. Without that, the institution of the subsidiary company device can mean setting up a whole chain of people dependent on the whim of certain individuals who are in the State companies concerned. As a principle, it is quite undesirable. In my view, it is quite essential that, if a subsidiary company has to be used as it may perhaps be used in this case, all the facts and information should be laid before the House in the same way as they are laid in relation to the parent company itself.

The defination in Section 1 of an approved subsidiary company does not specify whether that company is to be private or public. If it is a public company, at least one has recourse to the companies office to inspect accounts and so on. If it is a private company, such recourse is not available. I should like the Minister to make quite clear what he has in mind in that respect, so that we might consider whether it is desirable to leave it as it is or to restrict the section on the Committee Stage.

I do not quite understand, either, why section 4 is included in this Bill and why the matter was not dealt with in the more normal course of the scheduling to the State Guarantees Bill which Bill was brought in for the express purpose of enabling the Minister for Finance to give guarantees in respect of State companies. It seems to me that Section 4 is doing exactly the same job as was done in that Act. We on this side of the House feel that the developments in modern times require more processing than previously. It is commonplace that, the more modern life makes for rush and bustle, people will have less and less time to prepare food for the table, and so on, and that, therefore, the trend is all towards getting something that is ready instantly. The choice of the name "Instant Potato" was for that reason a very happy one.

By and large, in the years ahead we shall move to the same position as they have already reached in America where the whole stress and trend is towards having food pre-prepared in factories and delivered to the householder, so that the householder has to carry out the minimum amount of work on that food before it is ready for eating. This Bill will assist that to some degree and it will also assist in ensuring that as much intensive work as possible is done on the small farms of Ireland.

The Labour Party certainly welcome this proposal by the Government and the new development by Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann. We applaud the extension of the activities of State-sponsored bodies. We applauded the statement by the Taoiseach some time last year that it was intended that the State-sponsored bodies would be encouraged to extend their activities. We believe that one of the best prospects for the employment of our people lies in the activities of the State-sponsored concerns. This is evident as far as Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann is concerned. For that reason, we support the Bill.

I do not want to strike a discordant note but I trust that neither in this debate nor in future debates, will we hear any suggestion as was made by the Minister for Finance last year that some of these public companies should be put on the market, so to speak, and that private enterprise should be given an opportunity to take up the bulk of shares in them.

We applaud this measure as Deputy Sweetman has said, because it is also a much-needed new line for the farming community. They have been pretty well restricted of late in the crops that could be regarded by them as really profitable. They have been engaged to some extent, in the horticultural industry but not on the scale that every one of us would hope they would engage in horticulture. For that reason alone, I think this measure deserves the support of the House.

The Minister has said that the climate and the soil of this country are admirable. From the point of view of engaging in the horticultural industry, that is so. We think Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann will give an opportunity to the big proportion of our farmers to engage in the sowing and in the good harvesting of the horticultural crops, so that the accelerated freeze drying plant will be kept going, not merely for a portion of the year but for the whole 12 months of the year.

We know that, outside Carlow, the company has factories—different types of factories of course—in Mallow, Tuam and Thurles. I trust that when this industry expands—if it is economically possible, of course—there will be factories in various parts of the country. When we think of factories in this day and age, naturally we think of our own counties. The Minister is a colleague in my constituency. I am sure he would like to see an extension of the activities of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann into, say, County Wexford and into different parts of the country where employment is needed. However, that is a matter for the manager and directors of the Board of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann.

It is encouraging to note that they have extended to Mallow, Tuam and other places in particular business. We trust it will not be the end of the extension. The Minister says the products are mainly destined for export. He should expand on that. It is very desirable that we should concentrate on exports but if possible I think these products should also be available in the home market. I have no idea what prices will be like in this line of goods.

There are other undertakings in the country engaged in the canning of horticultural products. I am inclined to think that maybe a little element of competition by a State-sponsored company might not be at all bad. We are told that there will be fierce competition when we become—should I say, if we become?—members of the Common Market. These people will just have to face up to competition some time or another and this might be an opportune time to start. Perhaps the Minister would give us the reasons for the suggestion that there will be a limited amount available for the home market. There was a suggestion some time ago by the manager of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann that he was being stymied in his efforts to extend the business to which we are now referring. I have no evidence that what he said was true but I do remember reading something to that effect in some of the newspapers about 12 months ago in regard to efforts to expand and extend the food canning and food processing industry, so possibly this is a compromise.

The Minister has also spoken about the prospects for development and I do not think he could be too enthusiastic about our prospects, if we do the job properly. Deputy Sweetman has referred to the age in which we live. It is indeed an age of cannel food, an age in which, whether we approve of it or not, a big proportion of women in Europe and in the world generally are working. In many cases because they are working, they are not in a position to prepare food in the traditional manner and for that reason have greater recourse to canned food which is easier and quicker to prepare.

While the Minister has said that the export potentialities lie in certain countries in Europe, we must remember that Europeans are choosey about their food. I think it could be said they are a little more choosey than we are and therefore this will have to be a very successful effort and not just a question of throwing frozen or dried foodstuffs into cans and sending them across Europe. There could be mentioned many efforts in the past to export to the Continent canned foodstuffs which after a while were rejected because they were not up to the mark. For myself, I have sufficient confidence in the manager and board of directors of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann to believe they would not attempt to send out badly processed foodstuffs but, on the other hand, would send only foodstuffs which would be acceptable to the countries in Europe which we hope will buy these products.

I do not know what plans Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann have for consultation and cooperation with the farming community. Farmers are relatively slow to change their methods and the development of the horticultural industry may require the farming community to change their methods of growing or harvesting. The general manager of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann should set up some sort of advisory or consultative board with the farmers because there is no point in his or his fellow directors' issuing directives or orders to the farming community that they must do this or they must do that. In my experience, the Irish farmer does not react to that sort of talk. I do not suggest it has been done in the past but Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and the farmers would profit, if there were some sort of consultation and co-operations as to the ways and means of getting the best product to the factory from the fields.

The Minister mentioned the fishing industry in one line. I do not criticise him for that but it would have been interesting to have a little more comment on the prospects for the fishing industry. This industry has well been described as the Cinderella of our natural industries. We have had justifiable complaints from time to time of the gluts of fish on the Irish market. There have been stories of the dumping into the sea of great quantities of fish. It would be a boon to this country and certainly to the fishermen around our coasts, if there were a profitable and secure market for the fish they catch throughout the year. There are fish-canning industries in this country but they do not seem to have made any impression on the big catches that are made. If the Minister could spur Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann on to process fish with a view to its export, it would be a great boon to the country and especially to the fishermen.

It is encouraging to note that as a result of establishing this accelerated drying, there may be established an associate industry. I do not know what the real prospects are there in that regard, but all of us hope they are good. The Minister has mentioned there will be needed in this industry boxes, cases, cartons, jute and paper sack and polythene laminates. Whether it is possible to make all these things in the country, I do not know, I am sure it is possible but while Ministers from time to time tell us they cannot direct private enterprise to establish industries in any particular case, because this is a State-sponsored company, the Minister should ask his nominated directors, in any case, to ensure that these industries are placed, if they are to be established, in areas where there is unemployment.

I do not know whether this has anything to do with this measure or not but the Minister in the course of his speech to Deputies said that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann is now in need of further moneys for certain other developments. I assume that is purely in the processing of sugar but perhaps the Minister in his concluding speech will say what these developments might be. The Minister, in the concluding part of his speech, said he could promise on behalf of the Government, and, he would venture to say, on behalf of the Dáil, that the company could make its plans for expansion in the full confidence that a further request for finance would be sympathetically received and welcomed. As far as the Labour Party are concerned, he is not too presumptious because we certainly applaud his sentiments in that respect. We will support any proposals the Minister brings in here to expand any of the State-sponsored companies, where we know and are assured that the expansion will mean better trade for the country, better export trade and above all, extra employment.

My enthusiasm for this measure is tempered with sadness because it has come so late. I sincerely hope that it is not too late. If there is any hope at this stage of getting into food processing in the way in which that should have been done over the past 15 years, the sugar company is the only body in this country able and fit to achieve that objective.

In his speech, of which I have not a copy but of which I took a note, the Minister said that any move to export commodities in processed form rather than in the natural state is welcomed. That is the understatement of the year by the Minister. We have had the position over the past 40 years that the farming community in Ireland have been indoctrinated with the idea that the intensive type of farming is the most suitable for the small farmer. It will be very difficult at this stage to break him off the habit and belief that has been inculcated in him over the years. We know from the population figure and from the protests made all over Ireland that, consequent upon that intensive type of farming that has been operating here for years, rural Ireland is being depopulated to a degree never envisaged 25 to 30 years ago. The decline has continued and the tempo has been stepped up. Therefore, it will be a tremendously difficult task to halt or reverse the process.

The subsidiary company attached to the sugar company that will be established when this measure becomes law will have a major task on its hands. Over the past 20 years, we have looked on while Holland, Denmark and Britain developed food processing. We have seen how food processing has expanded in these highly industrialised countries. Figures are available which show that in Britain alone consumption of processed foods, such as vegetables, is in the region of £800,000,000 per year. That market is being met by British horticulturists and small farmers and by imports from European countries that have realised the extraordinary value of processing agricultural products on a big scale. We have sat silent while that market in Britain was being filled by other countries. Now, at this late stage, when other countries are geared up and have the marketing arrangements almost completely under their control in the larger places like Britain, we try to break into that very tough market, almost completely unorganised — infants, in fact, in this warfare.

Even though it may sound at this stage as being in bad taste on a measure such as this, I want to say that it should not be forgotten that Governments over the years stand condemned for their neglect of this very important industry which should be the major arm of agriculture. I cannot understand the reason for the neglect.

Somebody may intervene in this debate and say the AFD process which will now be considered under this measure is a new process. I agree that it is a new process but, for the last 30 years, the processing of foodstuffs has not been new as far as other countries were concerned. We made no attempt to engage in any type of food processing in a big way. We have a chance—it is a slight one—in that the sugar company were the first to understand the value of the experiments carried out in Scotland and were the first in the field with this process. There is a hope that we will be able to maintain our lead but the hope is slight. At this stage, every Deputy should express support for the action taken by the sugar company over the years, in view of the opposition that was shown towards them and the attempt made by the private food processing group in this country to sabotage—and I deliberately use that word—their efforts in the food processing campaign.

We have had the statement, extracted from the Minister in the course of replies to Parliamentary Questions, that the sugar company is to be prohibited from selling its own products on the home market except to the extent of 10 per cent. Is there any justification for such prohibition on one of the most successful State concerns in this country? Is it right that, in respect of products from the soil of Ireland and processed by Irish people in Irish factories, the Irish public should be told that they will get only 10 per cent. of the products, that the rest must be exported? The public should be told why that prohibition was placed on the sugar company. Many of us know why it was imposed, that it was at the deliberate request of, the pressure exercised by, a number of food-processing companies in this country.

Some of those companies are subsidiary companies, with headquarters outside the State. Over the years, those companies, which engaged in the processing of certain horticultural lines and vegetables, posed as Irish companies. Admittedly, they gave employment to a number of Irish persons in their factories but what has been forgotten by many people and is not known to many others is that in many instances these companies imported over 70 per cent. of their raw material. There was the extraordinary spectacle of horticultural produce grown in Holland, Denmark and elsewhere being imported to Ireland, processed or put into tin cans in Ireland, and resold abroad. These subsidiary companies would not think it worth their while or in the national interest to point out to the Irish farmer that the growing of food for processing would be an ideal proposition for him. They failed utterly to demonstrate to the Irish farmer the advantages there were for him and they failed to get his support.

I have evidence of where they tried to exploit a number of small farmers in this country. When they found the farmer was able to increase production from the limited half-acre contract given to him, they cut the price the following year. That has been the attitude displayed by the private group who have had control of food-processing in this country. If any Deputy doubts that that group opposed the entry by the sugar company into the food-processing business, all he has to do is to read the annual reports of a number of these companies over the past three years in which they have attacked the sugar company for moving into what they maintained was the exclusive field of private enterprise.

We know well what happened in Wexford and in a number of other counties, as far as these private firms were concerned. We know that when it came to the giving of contracts for the growing of blackcurrants and other fruits, they left the fruit on the farmers' hands when there was a big supply, due to the right type of weather. When the return from the crop was larger than these companies anticipated, they refused to take the fruit at the price guaranteed and offered merely a dumped price. It is a well known fact that in fruit growing areas the farmers left the fruit on the land. That was brought about by the activities of these private groups to which I have referred.

I hope the Minister will ensure that the efforts of the sugar company to help the Irish farmer will not be thwarted and that these companies will receive no attention from the Minister. I hope he will accept the lesson the Government have been taught that they cannot depend on these private enterprise firms to bring about that revolutionary change in Irish agriculture. To my mind, the sugar company is the ideal type of State company to secure the confidence of a farmer and to get his support. Over the years, Deputies have condemned the idea of State enterprise and State interference. As far as I can judge, the two major Parties have spent their time worshipping at the shrine of private enterprise. They have seen the results in this field of agriculture where the question of intensive cultivation of the land has been neglected, due to this belief in private enterprise. They have watched the situation develop in which the markets were taken over by other countries while Ireland concentrated on store cattle reared on small holdings. They have watched that type of agricultural husbandry over the years and they would not interfere because of the sacred rights of private enterprise.

I am glad to see the conversion and that both sides have to admit that, in this vital field, State enterprise is absolutely essential and that this is absolute socialism in the best sense of the word. It is a great encouragement to people who have preached that doctrine for years to find this conversion to-day on the question of fruit processing and that the State is in a position to salvage the situation that has resulted from the sabotaging efforts of private enterprise over the years.

Some Deputies have expressed concern that the sugar company may not have liaison with the farming community, that they might need to set up some group to explain all this to the farmer. My experience has been that the sugar company is one of the best companies for keeping in touch with the farmer and getting his confidence and development on these lines is ideal. On the one hand, the grower, the small farmer will get technical advice, educational facilities, loans and all possible types of help from the sugar company and its subsidiary, and on the other, a guaranteed price for his product. He will know what he is to get and budget for his expenses over the year.

In other words, for the first time the small farmers who are likely to go in for growing vegetables, fruit and so forth, will have a guaranteed market and a stability which was lacking. The only group who had that privilege hitherto are the wheat growers. We know that the majority of those were not in the small farmer category in the poorer and heavily populated centres. For the first time, the small farmer will have an opportunity of a guaranteed market for a cash crop. I have the feeling that the proper way for the sugar company and its subsidiary to go about this is to organise this business on lines similar to those in the beet industry, where the growers can from their own association and negotiate and fight their terms with the processing group itself. There we have the proper type of cooperation, the farmers in a form of a co-op. and the State acting as a processor, the processing agent, and cutting out the exploitation by what I can describe as the bandit middleman who has preyed on the producer and the consumer over the years.

It is well known that by reasons of the tremendous work that lies ahead in this field, only a company with the knowledge and experience of the sugar company is certain to get into the foreign market and will be fit to fight its corner. In that company, there are some of our best brains, technicians and dedicated Irishmen who are prepared to work hard and cooperate with the farming community. I hope they will go from success to success in the development of this project.

I hope that apart from the markets which are close at hand, every effort will be made and every support given to the new company to explore the markets which I believe are available in the newly-emerging African States. Quite a number of these products should be suitable for consumption in countries like Ghana, Nigeria and so forth. The question of bulk or weight is no great problem and it is advantageous that in the type of packaging and the treatment given to the fruit itself it will last indefinitely in the climate of these countries. The terms of friendship which exist between Ireland and these countries should be explored on the basis that we are prepared to do our best with them and to help them in other ways so far as lies in our power. If we do that, there is a possibility of developing these markets. I also feel, despite the fact that it is rather late in the day, that there is a possibility of getting into the huge market which lies beside us. It would be better for us to concentrate on places such as Britain than to cast our eyes on Germany, France or Europe, for the sale of products which we hope will result from this legislation.

In conclusion, I should like to say to the Minister that I wish the new company every success. As I have said I am glad that the number of converts to the idea of State enterprise seems to be increasing every day in this House. I hope that when Deputies who up to the present have been afraid to express their views openly, see the Government and the major Opposition Party welcoming the efforts being made by the sugar company—a State company—to get cracking, they will be encouraged to say that this should be done in many other spheres of activity.

The speaker who has just concluded made some excessive statements with which I want to record disagreement. I think until the political climate of this country accepts socialism, then a balance of some kind must be maintained between what the State does and what private enterprise does. We had a history of certain State activities here and, after we obtained freedom to run our own country, our industry was not of an imposing nature. Our capitalists were not of the kind that the last speaker would probably visualise capitalists in other countries as being.

In the philosophy of the development that has taken place here, we are coming now, I think, to the stage where we must examine that whole philosophy. I have no doubt that there was, for instance, very determined opposition by manufacturers and food packers to the proposal of the sugar company that they should market these new products on the home market and I am glad that the Government said: "No. There is a limit to what you can do in that regard" and they confined the market to 10 per cent. The problem is there and the Government had to deal with it in that manner.

When one comes then to the crossroads of State and private enterprise, a problem such as we have now before us inevitably arises. Those in private enterprise who have been engaged in the processing and packaging of food here can make a case to which we can all listen and, to a great extent, accept that it is not fair that a State created and State supported organisation, like the sugar company, enjoying complete protection in the marketing of its main product here, with the support of the taxpayers, should not be allowed to compete against private enterprise concerns. These private enterprise industries engaged in food packing are engaged in it on a modest scale, as compared with that envisaged by the sugar company. These private enterprise industries are small but they are very valuable, particularly from the point of view of labour content. Again, they do—the two or three of them that I know certainly—under the capitalist system, that which we want them to do, and they do it extremely well.

I would certainly agree that they should not be asked to endure what can only be described as steamroller competition, particularly steamroller competition from a great concern erected by them as taxpayers. We should, I think, try to ensure that we get the best out of both systems. It is the somewhat peculiar task, at this stage of our history that we should have to work in that way because, as I said earlier, the growth of great industry here through the medium of private enterprise was not possible because of the evolution of the history of this country. That goes back to Dean Swift. We have been trying to make up leeway.

As far as I know, no fabulous fortunes have been made by those engaged in private enterprise industry here. They are now facing a future which will be a very testing one for them. If those private enterprise industries were situate in the constituencies of Deputies who have already spoken, and particularly the last Deputy I should imagine they would be very vocal, if activity by a monolith organisation like the sugar company threatened the continuance of these industries.

Apart altogether from the political and social aspects involved in any discussion on private versus State enterprise, private enterprise has made a contribution. Private enterprise has employed our people. Private enterprise has done things reasonably well. Some industries have actually been competitive and have exported. I do not want to see them broken up by a vast organisation like the sugar company at the very time when they need all the financial strength, confidence and encouragement to meet the challenge of the years that lie ahead if we enter the Common Market.

Above all, I object very strenuously to any attempt to oust private enterprise here by backdoor methods. I also object to putting into the mouths of members of my Party words they did not use. We are supporters of private enterprise and private industry. We hope to remain so. We understand the necessity for the kind of public industry we have and we hope to go on supporting that. If I have anything else to say, it is to express regret that the sugar company did not, by arrangement with the Minister, seek to get any further capital it requires from the citizens direct.

Everybody in the House will, I think, subscribe to the fact that the capital of the sugar company will expand. Certain remarks have been made by a Deputy on my right, with regard to private enterprise and public enterprise. His remarks have, in large measure, been refuted by my colleague, Deputy A. Barry. It is only reasonable to assume that private enterprise and public enterprise can work in harmony. The suggestion that everything should be owned by the State and that private enterprise should not be allowed to exist is puerile nonsense, and nothing else.

In this case, we are dealing with a State-sponsored company set up originally by the Act of 1933, an Act it is proposed to amend here to-day. The capital is being increased from £2,000,000 to £5,000,000. Everybody will accept that as desirable. There are, however, one or two things in this Bill with which I do not agree. Deputy Sweetman has referred to one of them already. Of the £2,000,000 in 1933, the Minister for Finance held £5,000,000 worth of shares. Under this Bill, with £5,000,000, the Minister can hold £3,500,000 worth of shares. Proportionately that is a great deal more than he held before.

This is a State-sponsored company. It is a company that is doing well. It is paying a dividend on both its ordinary and preference shares. The more State money put into companies such as this, the less there is left for other development. The sugar company is a company which could go to the public market on a public flotation and get every penny it wants. From that point of view, the introduction of this Bill in its present form is unnecessary. I should like the Minister to tell us why he did not permit the company —some of the higher executives in the firm were anxious to do so—to go to the country on a private flotation and get the money required rather than drawing on State capital funds. A company as good as the sugar company would have had no difficulty.

Apart from the production of beet and the manufacture of sugar, the company have now gone into a very fertile field of production, the processing of vegetables and all kinds of commodities, for which there is a tremendous future. Let us consider for a moment the market for processed foods in the United Kingdom a few years ago. It was £10,000,000. To-day it is over £25,000,000 and it is growing every year. There is an almost illimitable demand for these products in the United States of America.

The manager of the company told me that they are exporting to Europe already everything they process in the line of vegetables and so on, and if they had far more, they could export it also. He also informed me that they are buying up the products the small companies that started up in the poorer parts of the country are unable to sell. To suggest that State companies set up like that should frighten off the smaller companies is not right. They should be complementary to each other. That is an avenue in which there is opportunity for enormous expansion.

I should like to congratulate the sugar company on what they have done. I do not see any reason why they should be forced to remain as a public enterprise or why the State should keep complete control of the company, provided they can stand on their own feet. I know of a German company that was set up by public enterprise and turned over to private enterprise. Recently, they were able to float a loan and buy out all the State capital that had been invested. We should not have too much of a one-track mind in this House. Where they find that private enterprise can do the job as successfully as anyone else, it is the duty of a Government, no matter what their political opinions, whether they are to the right or to the left, to let private enterprise function and take over. That would mean that there would be more State capital available for developing other industries in the country.

I should like the Minister to tell us if he was asked by any of the executives, any of the directors, or anyone concerned with the company, to issue this as a private flotation, and if he was, why he has not done so. I should like to ask him, whether or not he was asked, to tell the House whether he believes that if it were floated as a private loan, the money would be available. It is only fair to say that when they are paying a full dividend on all the paid-up capital invested in the company, they are a sound marketing proposition. Many people would like to invest money in industrial holdings but they seldom get a chance of doing so.

The Minister should take another look at this Bill and, instead of guaranteeing the loan, he should let the company go ahead and do their own job, and he could then utilise the capital for some other purpose for which it may be more necessary.

I welcome this Bill. I believe that our farmers are capable of competing with the farmers of any other country in Europe or, indeed, in the world.

Any expansion by the sugar company is very welcome. While the executives and the employees of the sugar company have been operating in the fields, their opponents have been operating over Radio Éireann and Telefís Éireann. So far as I know, that is where some or indeed most of the opponents of the sugar company have been operating. The people who want us to believe that the operations of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann should be curtailed must have very short memories. The companies they are upholding, or trying to uphold, are very minor branches of British or foreign concerns which were sent here to make all the profits they could, as rapidly as they could, and to exploit our farmers to the greatest possible extent. That is not being done by the sugar company.

The only criticism I should be inclined to make about the expansion of the sugar company is that I wonder if they are expanding along the proper lines. They are too much inclined to expand their activities among the better-off sections of the community, and to ignore the requirements of the less well-off sections. The executives of the company should remember— and the Minister in so far as he may have any control over them should remember—that in the west, and in many other of the poorer areas, there are large expanses of bog which are almost entirely free from disease. As the sugar company are now deciding to launch out into new lines of production and development, they should try to exploit fully the bog resources of the west and the poorer areas.

Apart altogether from the commercial point of view, there is a very important sociological point of view. There is, of course, the question of the huge populations in those areas. If the sugar company were prepared to expand their activities into those areas, it would mean that there would be increased employment and consequently much less emigration.

The question of the raising of funds has been dealt with in the proper way by the Minister. I admit that private enterprise has played a certain part, but a rather poor part. The part it has played has been practically entirely for the sole benefit of private enterprise, and the operators of private enterprise, and not for the benefit of the ordinary people. That is one of the reasons I am very anxious to see that the attitude of the Minister is accepted. The sugar company have set out to bring the greatest good to the greatest number while the operators of private enterprise have set out for the past 40 years to bring the greatest benefit to the smallest number. Let no one have any doubt about that.

We hear a great deal of talk about the Common Market and the effects of our entry—if we ever do enter it— on private enterprise and on the activities of State-sponsored companies. I think we are far too inclined to cast aspersions on our own people and our own workers—and in doing so, let me say, on ourselves. Our people are excellent workers. Our farmers are as good as the farmers anywhere in the world, and what is still more important, our products are of absolutely excellent quality. If we are not in a position to market them, and to market them profitably, something is wrong with ourselves, and something is wrong with the people in high places and not with our products or their producers.

Our goods to be readily marketable and profitably saleable should be of a distinctive quality. We should not be ashamed of their distinctive quality. We should not be always aping foreigners not only in their ways and manners but also by imitating their products instead of trying to put our own distinctive products on the markets of the world. There is no reason, good, bad or indifferent, why the products of this country should not be readily saleable in the markets of the world.

There is also no reason why a progressive company like the sugar company should not enter into other fields of production. One field, in which we have fallen down particularly, is in regard to the marketing of fish and fish products, which are so readily marketable. In view of the undoubted success of the sugar company in all the lines in which they have engaged, they should be asked to explore the possibility of developing our fishing industry to some extent.

Any developments undertaken by the company should be based not only on what we think the Americans and the people of other countries require but on what we know the people of this country require. Instead of pursuing the policy of the bacon factories, who will not give a taste of bacon to the Irish people, the sugar company should give a taste of their products to the Irish people and let them know what they are like. If they did that, they would be going a long way towards getting the Irish people to help them out afterwards in any efforts they may make towards capturing markets throughout the world. I have not the slightest doubt but that they will capture those markets, but in doing so they should not sacrifice the goodwill of the Irish people. Where their products are of high quality, they should be as readily available to the Irish people as they are to the people of Holland, Belgium and the African countries.

We all welcome the developments as a result of the extension of the activities of the Irish sugar company into other fields. It is very welcome to see a new market for Irish agricultural produce, and that is the end of this piece of legislation. The accelerated freeze-drying plant, as the Minister indicated, is the largest in the world and the first commercial plant in the world. It is yet very much an experimental effort. Public taste is an extraordinary thing. Goods, which at first seem most attractive to a great number of customers, may not in the long run be the success it was thought they would be. It appears that the products of the accelerated freeze-drying plant have been well received, but that is as far as we can go at this stage. We must express the hope that this happy state of affairs will continue and that we will get the sort of results for the Irish farmer that the Minister hopes for and that we, on this side of the House, hope for.

There are certain gaps in the information given to us by the Minister in his speech. I should like to know from him what volume of vegetables and fruit the present plant will be able to handle, if we were in a position to sell the full production of that plant. Just how much money would the Irish farmer get for that produce, not only the total amount but the amount per unit per lb. of fruit, per stone of vegetables or per ton of potatoes? That is very important. It is true—and I say this in a spirit of constructive criticism — that farmers have been disappointed with the prices they got for some of the vegetables and fruit they have sold so far to the sugar company. I would mention black currants in particular. There has been some disappointment. In view of our anxiety to see that the farmer gets the most out of this as possible, it would be wise for the Minister to indicate, if possible, what he thinks the farmer will get next year for the various produce the sugar company will buy from him and, if this plant can sell all its produce, just what volume it is capable of handling.

We are speaking of a very high capital expenditure, and surely then we should have more details? I understand that the instant potato-flake plant at Tuam has produced flake potatoes which, at the experimental stage at least, have been very well received. It seems extraordinary in a country like this, where so many good ordinary potatoes are on offer, that the housewife would use this sort of product but I understand that in certain shops, where these flakes were experimentally on offer, they were well received and the housewife liked them. If the taste is good, I am sure they will do well. Again, I would like to know what sort of price the farmers will get and what will be the volume if this plant at Tuam can sell all it can produce in one year.

The Minister said: "Furthermore Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann's ordinary sugar manufacturing business itself now stands in need of certain developments involving a capital outlay." Therefore, I think it is in order for me to discuss the ordinary activities of the company. I want to discuss the price paid for beet. I should like to see a higher price paid. While I am not going to be entirely specific on this, there is some evidence that the variety of beet issued as seed to the grower, for resale back to the company, has not a high relative yield but has a very high sugar content. If the difference on a sugar content of 16 per cent. is four per cent., it appears that 25 per cent. less beet has to be processed to produce an equal amount of sugar.

I understand that the type of beet which the Dutch farmers are allowed use gives a higher yield with a lower sugar content. I have not exact figures, but beet is no longer a high profit crop. The degree of labour there is in the handling of beet means it is not as attractive to the farmer as it was. But it is still attractive enough to mean that the sugar company get all the beet they want for processing. At the same time, however, that matter should be looked at.

Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann have succeeded in paying their dividends and they have succeeded, I suppose, as an economic unit. But we must also watch this question of what the farmer gets for his beet, not on the basis of what he will grow the beet for— because he will have roots in his rotation anyway—but on the basis of proper costings and on the prices paid for beet in Continental countries such as Holland. When we make this comparison, it is not valid to make it on the comparison of cwt. for cwt. or ton for ton, but on sugar content for sugar content and yield for yield. That may be very detailed and it may be something that, in an assembly such as this, may be subject to certain window dressing of one sort or another. If we are to make the sugar company more efficient by the injection of public capital, we should see to it that the primary producer is paid sufficiently. If there are any statements the Minister would like to make on this aspect of the matter, I should be glad to hear them.

Great play was made in some of the contributions to this debate with the question of public versus private enterprise. Comparisons are probably always odious and the comparison of the sort made by Deputy Leneghan and Deputy McQuillan, is particularly odious. Private enterprise has its place in the economy and similarly State enterprise has its place. We must face this in an adult way. It is no use to abuse private enterprise and private fruit-processing firms. They have bought their fruit here, those of them that established themselves in this country, and have paid pretty well for it. Most of the complaints I have heard have been on the basis that they will not buy sufficient fruit, that they have not the volume of sale that allows them to do so. Most of such firms based here are supply industries for the provision of jams and bottled fruit and they supply the home market which is a very small one.

It is a pity that the debate has been befuddled in discussing whether public or private enterprise is the better. I think it is obvious in this field that, if accelerated freeze drying is to be a success, we have backed a very successful horse in being first in the world. Considering the amount of capital required, I do not think the venture would have been undertaken by private enterprise. If the decision to go on with this project was made on sage and very detailed examination of the facts, then the investment was sound and solid but, in any case, it is one that would not have been made by private enterprise. Therefore, I think those comparisons do not arise.

If the Minister can indicate what sort of price the farmer is going to get for his vegetables, what sort of volume he will be allowed to sell, with similar details about quantities and prices of fruit based on the total throughout of the plant for one year, leaving out the question of sales and marketing, and if the Minister can indicate that there is any hope that we will get more money for our beet if we are going to put more capital in it, I would be very much obliged if he would refer to these matters when replying.

It is very satisfactory to hear the echoes of the great, historic world debate between private enterprise and capitalism in Leinster House. It is useless for the Deputy to talk about the undesirability of comparing private and public enterprise in Ireland. It is no good trying to suggest it is odious to do so. It is inevitable; it must be done because the whole future prosperity of the community depends on the decision we arrive at about the desirability of one and the undesirability of the other. Deputy Barry was right when he said that when we started, in this State, we did not have a capitalist who was particularly interested in the funding of industries in any kind of large scale——

We did not have the capital as full stock.

Does full stock make a difference?

We just had not private money available.

I do not want to put words into the Deputy's mouth. I thought that is what he said. If he did not say it, he could have said it because it was true. A considerable number of people did not want to invest money here in Ireland and the best proof of that fact is that some £600 or £700 million is invested outside. It is, therefore, a reasonable statement to make.

The sad thing is that we did not accept that fact and have confidence in ourselves and in our own resources, in the capacity of our own people to provide raw materials. In the first place, we had agricultural produce. Nothing would have been easier and there was nothing in which we were more expert or better able to do. Secondly, we could provide technicians and technocrats and we could provide capital. In a tiny sector of our society, in the subsequent 30 or 40 years, we did that, but in relation to the public utility types of industry which were started because, of course, society needed power and fuel and forests and so on, which private enterprise was not interested in because, clearly, no quick profit could be got from it. Also it has since been shown and proved that these industries were competently run with excellent efficiency on the whole.

We criticise them here. That is one of the great advantages of public concerns, that we, in relation to a number of them, are allowed to criticise them to a great extent which is more than can be said about the average private company or the ordinary company outside which does not depend on voted moneys for its capital. So, while I disagree with the fact that Comhlucht Siúicre is a publicly funded company and that we do not have the amount of control over it which I think is desirable in a proper publicly-owned enterprise—I should much sooner see these companies both owned and controlled by the public or their nominees—I welcome the Bill and the advances which are to be made by Comhlucht Siúicre in this new field.

One of the odd things about the debate which has continued in the world for the past 30 or 40 years and has continued here, to a lesser extent, is the jeering tone which used to be adopted towards this idea of the socialist organisation of a society in which you create these State companies. That was used in the pejorative sense and when, because they got bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy and were unable to make decisions, because of their inflexibility and lack of real direction, they became inefficient. They were incompetent. Consequently, one did not get the best value for one's money. It seems to me that that sort of criticism of the old idea of State companies or publicly-owned companies has taken a back seat. We no longer hear it. We no longer hear that Aer Lingus, for instance, is a badly run company; that it is beridden by red tape, stifled by bureaucracy and unable to make any decisions.

The same remarks apply to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. Everybody is loud in his praises of this company. It is one of the few companies, other than the public utility type of company, which make a surplus. It has had the courage not only to get into the home market—the irony is that it has difficulty in regard to getting into the home market—but also into the export market. It is one of our few industries which has been able to do that.

And so we hear less and less about the incompetent and inefficient State company. We are now told that private enterprise is frightened of these companies and frightened of free competition. We used to be told that free competition was the dynamic of private enterprise. The more we had of it the merrier. The whole illogicality of this was borne out with the development of monopoly which decided the price of a commodity and the amount of profit that would be made. The consumer was forgotten. The consumer was the least thought of person in the whole operation.

Now, as I say, we hear no more about this incompetency. Instead, we hear about a poor little private enterprise firm which is so tiny that it should not be over-run by this State steamroller. It all depends on what you think the purpose of Government and the purpose of politics is. Over the years, we have repeatedly asked the various Minister in the Government about the possibilities of getting services for our people, whether in the sphere of education, health or the care of the old people. We are always told that there is not enough money in the kitty and that we cannot afford it. That seems to me to be the important difference between the new type of concept of the organisation of a State and organisation for personal prosperity.

Deputy Barry said that no great fortunes were made. I do not know what he calls a great fortune but a lot of money has been made by a few people in the past few years. There is that personal objective of Government policy. Then there is the other objective which we socialists believe in—the welfare of the community as a whole, national prosperity.

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy but he is straying rather far from the Bill before the House.

I am answering——

Acting Chairman

I have allowed a good deal of latitude for that purpose.

It was enlarged into a discussion.

By the other 50 per cent. of your Party.

It was a defence of private enterprise. I am merely trying to answer that. I do not want to take any liberties with the House. I think that was the basic debate over the years. Private enterprise was organised in such a way that it could not give one million jobs in the past 30 years. Private enterprise could not give better educational facilities to our people. To that extent, it could be said to have failed the community.

On the other hand, State companies of various kinds, some of which are better organised and established than others, have been particularly successful. I suppose the most successful have been Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Aer Lingus and probably Irish Steel Holdings. They have succeeded more than any one else in dispelling the idea that the public could not organise industry as well as the old type aristocracy, the family groups which ran the old family firms in the old days. In the same way, we, public representatives in Parliament, have shown that we can organise and run our affairs as well as and better than most of the old minority of aristocratic families which ran society here 50 or 100 years ago.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is now getting away from the Bill.

Deputy Barry suggested that if Deputy McQuillan was faced with a situation in his own constituency, where a State company would steamroll a tiny company, he would be particularly vociferous. The sad thing is that in relation to the particular industry we are talking about—the food processing industry — every Deputy living in a rural constituency should have a part in it because the produce of the small farmer and the big farmer in each rural area should filter to such a food processing industry. Because of the failure of private enterprise to develop efficient industries, they have not been able to absorb the potential of Irish agriculture. The result is that they are only nibbling at a tiny part of it. That is a result of the fact that they concern themselves nearly exclusively with supplying the protected home market.

We have seen the elimination of this dynamic of competition. They have not gone to get competition in Europe, or even in Great Britain, to any appreciable extent. They have not allowed any competition at home by means of the operation of restrictive cartels. In consequence, they are grossly inefficient industries. The whole idea of automation and mechanisation might never have taken place, as far as private enterprise is concerned.

It is right that this State company should take over the role of investing in rural Ireland because, eventually, the money will go back to the farmers in rural Ireland. Operatives will be employed in the different industries and the result is that everybody will benefit. There is no question of steam-rolling a small company with nothing to replace it. Our suggestion is that this company, operating extremely efficiently, will not concentrate on the home market will concern itself with creating great national wealth for the people as a whole by going into the export market. By virtue of the fact that they can spend money on these new scientific advances in food processing methods, they can afford to allow us to go into the export markets with competitive prices. As a result, they will make the maximum amount of wealth for our people.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share