Before procceding to put the Bill through its remaining stages, I think there are many things that would be the better of further consideration. If the Seanad meets next week I suggest that we should postpone consideration of the Committee Stage until then. I would also like to support what Senator Bennett has said. I do not know if people fully appreciate the fact that the success or failure of the experiment, in which we are all very interested, depends on how far we can induce the farmers to take it up. For the last thirty years I have been endeavouring to get this question taken up, and I would like to thank the Government for doing so now. Perhaps what I have to say may have more effect when I mention that a proposal put forward by myself was not the one accepted. In spite of that, I welcome the Bill. I think it is the duty of a Government, if they are to be a Government, to make the best selection. I think they have done so. If the scheme is going to be a success, the farmers will have to be induced to grow beet. A great deal of land will have to be broken up, and farmers want some security that they will get a return. Unless you secure a farmer his income for over five years from a rotation, I doubt very much if you will get the quantity of beet that is wanted. My suggestion would entail an amendment to the second schedule. I think it would be also desirable to amend another section.
SEANAD IN COMMITTEE.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We have passed the Second Reading, and suspended Standing Orders. I now propose to take the Sections.
I would ask the Seanad to postpone taking the Committee Stage. It could be taken on Thursday, and in the meantime there would be time, in conjunction with the advisors to the Government, to consider the most desirable form of amendment.
I take it that this is the only business remaining.
I think that if you are going to make a success of this scheme, it is essential that it should not be rushed. We are all very anxious that it should be a success.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I sympathise with that feeling, but the suggestion I have heard is that three years are insufficient.
I think that sub-section 3 of Section 1 might be amended with very great advantage. I propose that such an amendment be considered on Thursday. I am not in a position to say now what would be the most desirable form of the amendments. I think there should be some consultation.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Will you be wiser by Thursday?
Yes.
I think there would be no need for the Seanad to meet next week. The Dáil, I think, will have its last meeting this Session to-morrow, unless it comes back specially. The position is that the Dáil will, perhaps, then adjourn until November.
I think we should get this Bill through all Stages now.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is agreed, but when we reach the Committee Stage the Senator has moved that further consideration be adjourned. I cannot prevent the Senator from moving that amendment, and it is for the Seanad to say whether they will accept it or not.
I think we are quite competent to give the extension of time, to which I thoroughly agree, on the schedule.
I think that a promise to the farmer for a certain number of years would be largely affected by the subsidy payable. The agreement with the promoters, who are to build the factory, is limited to three years. That is one point that consultation is wanted upon. If the subsidy is limited to three years, the persons who are to put up the factory may not be in a position to pay the price mentioned for a longer period. It is essential that that price should be paid. I do not think, however, that you will get the farmer to grow beet unless you guarantee him for five years.
I do not think it is fair to rush this Bill through now at one sitting. I suggest that the remaining stages be taken to-morrow.
I do not intervene to express any view as to what will suit the convenience of the Seanad or how much time should be given in considering this Bill. As far as the Minister in charge of the Bill is concerned, any delay will not make the accommodation anything more than what it is at the moment. The Minister has given way as far as he can in connection with this measure, and if it is amended he will not be, I think, disposed to recommend the Dáil to accept the amendment. I am not throwing that out in the nature of a threat, but I mention it as an important circumstance in connection with this Bill. Certain understandings, negotiations, and communications must take place before agreements can be reached in a matter of this kind. They have been reached as far as it is possible. This bargain was made for as long a period as was possible. The argument in favour of a longer period for guaranteed prices has been very shortly put by Senator Barrington, but it is open to the infirmity that the longer we continue this system of guaranteeing everybody a certain income and a certain price in respect to anything, just as surely and deliberately are we stopping initiative, limiting private enterprise, and doing all these things that are condemned by people in business. The amendment is unacceptable for the reason that the high rates guaranteed in the Bill for the first three years are for the purpose of enabling inexperienced farmers to grow comparatively small crops at a profit. The time must come when the farmer has got to make an economic proposition of beet sugar growing. It will not be enough to say, "You are guaranteed 50s." We will have to say to him, "You must make it a paying proposition. It must be an economic proposition to you." We cannot afford to subsidise every single order in the community to get some business done. Unless the farmer is placed in a competitive position with other people he will be in the position of getting eight or ten tons per acre with perhaps lower sugar percentage than would make it economical for the manufacturer to deal with him at all. While this is a Bill that will benefit the farmer, it is also a Bill which takes into consideration the manufacturers of sugar from beet. It is impossible to spoon-feed every single contributor towards the success of this particular experiment. It is one of a very expensive character, and everything was done to make it as cheap as possible. An extension in the direction mentioned by Senator Barrington would mean still a further price, and that price we are not advised it would be wise for us to pay.
I second Senator Barrington's proposition to adjourn the consideration of the Committee Stage until Thursday. The President has told us the subsidy cannot be continued for a lengthened period. We have no information as to how long the subsidy would be given to the manufacturer.
It is in the Bill.
If the length is the same in both cases I agree. I have no knowledge how long the rebate to the manufacturer extends. If the manufacturer is to get the rebate without any condition, then I do not think I am justified in agreeing to this part of the Bill.
It is in Section 1.
The manufacturer gets it for ten years and the farmer only for three years. I do not think that is reasonable. If we believe that the farmer should get a substantial inducement to break his land, I think we are entitled to argue that he should get the subsidy for ten years, the same as is given to the gentleman from Germany, or wherever he comes from, who will manufacture the sugar.
I move:—"Section 1, sub-section (2)—After the figures 1928 to add 1929 and 1930."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That would be a consequential amendment, assuming you alter the schedule.
Yes.
Amendment to increase the number of years from three to five, put and declared lost on a show of hands by one vote.