Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Aug 1933

Vol. 17 No. 15

Public Business. - Sugar Manufacture Bill, 1933—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 22 inclusive agreed to.

THE SCHEDULE.

Mr. Johnson

I move:—

Schedule. Paragraph 3. To add at the end of the paragraph a new sub-paragraph as follows:—

(g) that the wages paid to persons employed by the company for the purpose of the business of the company shall not be less than would be payable if such business were carried on under a contract between the Minister and the company containing a fair wage clause similar to that for the time being contained in contracts made by Ministers and Government Departments.

The object of the amendment is to ensure that the company will be bound by the same kind of condition that would be imposed upon a contractor if there was a contract between a Department and a manufacturer for some public purpose. The form that has been adopted in this amendment is exactly the form which was drafted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Cement Bill and the object is identical. It appears to me that the most appropriate way to have this made effective is to ensure in this Bill that the articles of association would make this provision. I do not think there is any need to argue the principle involved.

Mr. MacEntee

The Government is not opposed to the principle in this amendment, but it would deprecate its inclusion in the Schedule to the Bill at this stage for this reason: that it is a matter of the utmost importance that the Bill should become law so that the company may be incorporated at the earliest possible moment. The acceptance of the amendment now, and its insertion in the Schedule, would involve a reference back of the Bill for the concurrence of the Dáil in the proposal. Accordingly, I would ask Senator Johnson not to press his amendment. In that connection, I would be prepared to give him an undertaking that the articles of association of the company would contain an article to the following effect:—

"The wages paid to persons employed by the company for the purpose of the business of the company shall not be less than would be payable if such business were carried on under a contract between the Minister and the company containing a fair wage clause similar to that for the time being contained in contracts made by Minister and Government Departments."

I think the insertion in the articles of association of a voluntary clause to that effect would meet the point of view of the Senator, and I am sure be satisfactory. If the Senator would agree to withdraw his amendment, I am prepared to give him an undertaking to have that article inserted.

Mr. Douglas

I do not want to raise any objection to the course suggested by the Minister, but I think before he acts in accordance with the suggestion he has made that he ought to look carefully into the exact effect of an article of that kind where, in the event of any inadvertent breach of that article, it would render other acts of the company done under the articles of association ineffective. There may be nothing in the point that I am making, but the insertion of a clause of this kind in the articles of association of a company introduces a new principle, and there is just the danger that something which might be inadvertently done and which might be settled by negotiation might render other acts of the company null and void. Possibly there is nothing in the point, but I suggest to the Minister that he ought to look into it before taking the action he proposes.

Mr. Comyn

I cannot see how the insertion of a fair wages clause in the articles of association of a company could in any way affect any of the other rights and liabilities of the company. Senator Douglas is rather too careful in that respect. It is very likely that a clause in an Act of Parliament which would make it illegal for the company to do anything in contravention of a fair wages provision would be much more injurious to the company as a whole and to its stability than if the clause were inserted in the articles of association. I do not think that the difficulty which Senator Douglas thinks is likely to arise is to be apprehended. I do not see that it ever can arise.

Mr. Guinness

I should like to know from the Minister whether the paper laid on the Table and described as the "Accounts of the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company" is the balance sheet or if there are other accounts as well.

Mr. MacEntee

That is the balance sheet and the profit and loss account.

Mr. Guinness

It is a very good balance sheet, but it gives very little information. The meeting of the company is held behind closed doors and it is very difficult to arrive at what has actually been done. I notice that they have £380,000 in cash, which is a very fine achievement, but there is nothing to show how much sugar was made in the year. It would be interesting to know that, if nothing else.

Mr. Counihan

I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that the clause he proposes to insert in the articles of association will not apply to the people who employ labour to produce the beet—that it will not apply to agricultural labour. If it did I would strongly object to any such clause.

Mr. Farren

I should be surprised if Senator Counihan did not say that he would object to anybody getting any wages. This is a simple amendment. During the progress of all these Bills in which the Government take power to give licences to people with capital so that they will have a monopoly of the market, I never heard any suggestion that they should be hampered. The people with capital will be invited to put it into this concern, so that they will have a monopoly of the whole of the sugar trade in this country. We simply ask that, when the rights of the capitalists are being protected, the rights of the human beings who will be employed to produce the wealth the capitalists will partake of should also be protected. One would imagine that this amendment would be accepted without any question. Senator Johnson has agreed that he will not press to have this amendment inserted in the Bill because we are anxious to save time so that the Minister can get on with operations and get the factory working at the earliest possible moment. The Minister told us that he did not desire that the Seanad should pass this amendment, as the Bill would have to go back to the Dáil and that would cause delay. We were quite willing to accept the word of the Minister that he will insert a fair wages clause in the articles of association, but now we have all these questions raised as regards the legality of the procedure and how it might affect the company in other respects. Senator Counihan hopes that we will do nothing to see that the farm labourers' wages will be protected. These unfortunate people have nobody to protect them. When we talk about protecting the farmers and everybody else, let us not be unreasonable. Let us not forget the people who will be engaged in the sugar beet factory. They have some rights as human beings. The proposition here is a simple one. The clause which it is proposed to insert merely says that the Company shall preserve the same conditions of employment in their factory as if they were contractors to a Government Department. In other words, what is known as the "fair wages clause" will be in operation in the factory. Surely that is a reasonable proposition. In fact, I think we are too reasonable. If we had time, we might not be quite so reasonable. In order to show that we have no desire to stop the wheels of progress, and in order to enable the Minister to get ahead with the scheme so as to provide employment for the people and employment for the capital which is lying dormant, we are willing to accept his word that a suitable clause will be inserted in the articles of association.

Miss Browne

With regard to what Senator Farren said as to the wealth which will be produced by sugar beet manufacture, I should like to say that for the farmer who grows beet on the terms proposed in this Bill there will be no wealth whatever. Unless he has a good crop, he may lose money, as I have known beet growers to lose money even on the terms allowed by the Carlow factory. I do not want for a moment to be harsh on the agricultural labourer, but I am speaking from practical knowledge. We, who knew how hard the work was, tried to pay a little more to the agricultural labourer but to tie the farmer down to that would be quite a different thing. There will be no wealth in beet growing. There is an extraordinary delusion abroad that fortunes are to be made out of beet growing. That is altogether wrong. There is no fortune to be made out of growing of beet and unless a man has a very good crop he will lose money on the terms which are proposed.

Mr. Comyn

I think that Senator Counihan ought not to be twitted in regard to what he has said. I take it that the Minister's undertaking does not go beyond the terms of the amendment proposed by Senator Johnson. [Amendment quoted.] I take it that that refers only to the people employed in the factory—that it does not refer to the people employed by the farmer in the growing of beet and that it does not apply to the grown children of the farmer who assist him in the growing of beet. If it did apply to these people, I think those of us who have some little interest in farming would be inclined to object. I do agree with Senator Miss Browne that no fortunes are to be made out of the growing of beet. In fact, the only person who showed that she could make anything like a fortune in the cultivation of beet for sugar manufacture was Senator Miss Browne herself. She proved conclusively that £17 an acre clear profit could be made by the growing of beet.

Miss Browne

With an abnormal crop at a price of 53/- per ton.

Mr. Wilson

The principle set out here has been agreed to on many occasions. I might point out that there is no such thing in this Bill as a fair wages clause for farmers. Farmers are tied down to a very low price for beet in the Bill, but it is a question, even when they use the labour of their children, whether they will be able to make their costs, and, for that purpose, labour in this case is sheltering itself, as it always does, in these factories. The producers provide the material for sheltered labour to get high wages. That takes place in a great many industries.

Mr. Duffy

What about the price of butter?

Mr. Wilson

That is outside the scope of this Bill. I am not against a fair wages clause. It is really one of the things which should have been considered when fixing the price of the beet. At present beet is at a very low price.

Mr. Farren

If the farmers are not prepared to fight for their own end that is their look-out.

Mr. Johnson

This Bill does not fix the price, even of beet, and the amendment has nothing to do with the farmers' price, or with what the farmer pays for labour. Perhaps Senator Wilson will recall that in the Beet Sugar (Subsidy) Act of 1925 it was suggested that as farmers were getting a guaranteed price for beet there should be a guaranteed price for labour. As there is no guaranteed price in this Bill, we are not asking for a guaranteed price for farm labour, but we are asking that if the company which may establish factories in different parts are going to get a price for their material, at least the labourers should get the kind of remuneration which is normal as between a Government and contractors.

Let me assure the House that this is not a very definite, a very positive, or a very valuable amendment. I would like it to be very much more definite. However, it keeps up a continuity. It maintains that a fair wages clause should be inserted in the case of a business or a factory where there is State assistance to be given in the form of capital. At least the labourers should have some protection. I am glad to accept the Minister's assurance that an amendment of practically the same character will be inserted as one of the articles of association and, therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Jameson

This merely shows the trouble we meet when passing a Bill dealing with a new company when we know nothing whatever about the articles of association. This is one of the corollaries. We saw it coming. I do not think anyone in this House is trying to stop this Bill, one very good reason being that it would be impossible to do so. I would be in favour of the amendment as far as labour is concerned. Why should not labour get a bit out of what is going? One great reason why labour should be very careful to get a bit out of it is that it is the people labour represent whose money is going to be spent. It seems to be forgotten that all the wealth that is being talked about will come from the Irish people.

Mr. Johnson

That is what we told the House last week.

Mr. Jameson

Why should not labour, under these circumstances, make sure that labourers working in the factories should be able to get good wages? They are perfectly right to do so. It is their money that will pay the wages. Let there be no mistake about that. There is no wealth in it for anyone else. As far as the amendment is concerned, I was astonished to hear Senator Comyn saying that he thought it would be better for the company to have it in the articles of association than to have it made incumbent by Act of Parliament. The only point in connection with that is that the company might get out of it if it was not in the Act of Parliament.

Mr. Comyn

The Senator is right.

Mr. Jameson

Senator Johnson should look into the articles of association when he gets them to see that this proposal has as much validity as other clauses. We must remember that the whole revenue of this company will be regulated by taxation imposed on the people by the Government of the day. As far as we are able to judge by anything that has happened, that money will be supplied by the State, and will be the capital of this company. Under these circumstances, the Senator should remember that there might be an unsympathetic Government in the future which might think that the dividends should be arranged in other ways, and, as Senator Comyn said, they might alter the articles of association, and perhaps even minimise the weight of this proposal. The Senator should look carefully to see whether he will get as much out of a clause in the articles of association as he would if it was in the Act of Parliament. I think Senator Comyn is right. All these things are mere trivialities as far as the Bill is concerned. The future will depend upon a great many matters that are not before us now. No one can judge the future of this company or its real implications until we see the articles of association, and the terms regarding dividends, earning power and where the money to pay them is to come from. If we knew that we could talk sensibly about this question. There is no use saying any more about this Bill now. Let the Minister get his Bill and put money into this. Perhaps he might give us an opportunity, before it is too late, to consider the articles of association. Then we could do what ordinary directors of a new company would do, and be able to talk some sense.

Mr. Guinness

As we have heard a great deal of talk about the articles of association, I should like to hear from the Minister if they will have to be laid before the House, or be placed on the Table. If they come up for discussion in the House the point raised by Senator Jameson will be effected, but, if they are merely laid on the Table probably few Senators will see them.

Mr. Johnson

They will be sent out in the form of a prospectus.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining sections and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. S. Robinson

I move:—

That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Standing Order 85, the Report Stage of the Sugar Manufacture Bill, 1933, be taken to-day.

Mrs. Clarke

I second.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Sugar Manufacture Bill, 1933, be received for final consideration."

Mr. Johnson

I have to plead negligence in this matter but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Section 21 (4) (b) which provides

in the case of the acquisition of any land, give at least one month's or, if the land is an occupied dwelling house, three months' previous notice in writing to the occupier of the lands;

I had intended to put down an amendment dealing with this, to ensure that the occupier of the house would be provided with alternative accommodation. Three months' notice to an occupier of a dwelling house gives no right of obtaining alternative accommodation and is no better than three days' notice.

We have had, in the case of the Shannon Scheme, a very flagrant case where a man was deprived of his house, and it took several years to provide him with alternative accommodation. It was quite impossible for that man to get any alternative residence. I do not propose to amend the Bill at this stage, as it is now too late, but I would ask the Minister to take into account the possible danger and provide against it administratively if he can.

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to say just on that point that it is exceedingly unlikely that the powers conferred by this section will be exercised at all. The powers are merely put into the Bill as a matter of precaution. The Senator may rest assured that in no case will we acquire land with residence thereon unless it is absolutely necessary. Where the dwelling-house would have to be acquired, naturally the fullest weight would be given to these matters pointed out by the Senator and to all the circumstances of the case, and compensation would be paid to those damnified by such an action.

Question put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.