Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Oct 1945

Vol. 30 No. 9

Railway Charges for Sugar Beet—Motion.

I move the motion standing in my name:—

That the Seanad requests the Minister for Finance to make representations to Comhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta, with a view to the introduction of flat rate railway charges for the carriage of sugar beet to factories operated by the company.

This motion has been put down by me, representing perhaps the northern beet growers, as we have failed to make any impression whatever upon the company which controls the sugar factories, although we have tried every means at our disposal, not for one year but for many. Whilst the grievance from which we suffer may be borne by only a few, it is one which we feel bound to ventilate now, and which we have done our best to ventilate for the past six or eight years.

While the war was on I went to the Minister for Agriculture, and he definitely stated that at the earliest opportunity he would see that our grievance was redressed. The beet factories and beet growing are national industries. The beet factories were founded by the State, and every county and every individual in the community contributed towards their creation. We think we are justified in asking that our position should not be unduly prejudiced when providing the material with which the factories work. I noticed that a representative of the Department of Finance who attended a meeting of the sugar company said nothing unfortunately that would hold out any hope for us.

There are four beet growing associations, and they have 15 representatives for each factory area. The sugar company consults with growers on most matters and then comes to a decision afterwards. On the Beet Growers' Association in Carlow we have two of 15 other representatives. The growers of beet in Louth, Meath and Wicklow, being in a minority, are severely prejudiced in that respect. With regard to the factories at Thurles, Mallow and Tuam, everything over 6/- per ton by way of carriage is paid for by the sugar company. In the case of Carlow, after 8/- there is a subsidy of 1/- if the freight is 9/-, 2/- if it is over 10/-, and ends there. There is no added subsidy if the freight comes to £1 per ton. In Louth and Meath the average cost of freight is from 14/- to 16/- per ton. Although three factories are limited to a maximum cost of 6/- per ton, there is one factory to which the freight in some cases amounts to £1 a ton. I submit that that is something that the Government cannot lightly pass over, and that it is worthy of serious consideration both by this House and by the Government. If Mallow, Thurles and Tuam factories have a fixed minimum rate of 6/-, and if the general rate to Carlow is in the neighbourhood of 8/-, it could hardly be fair to expect the same amount of tillage from areas in a county like Meath.

Farmers in Louth are most anxious about tillage. In my case the freight on beet amounts to 14/- a ton, so that I am competing with farmers paying only 6/-. The time has come when the Minister for Finance must see that justice is done to the counties I am interested in. Some years ago county councils were abolished largely because they were supposed to be giving everything to their friends. The sugar company and the sugar factories are certainly not showing any sympathy with the counties I speak for, and reserve all for their own. On September 29th an article appeared in the Leader that is applicable to this case. It said:—

"The great world war has come to an end and the farmers of Ireland did not make any profits comparable to those of 1914/18 war. On the contrary, the increases of prices were limited by demand and supply in Ireland itself, if we except the case of fat cattle, and here again prices were far below the English marketing price. Food was scarce and there was no incentive to rear young animals, whether of cattle or pigs. Quite a number were content to cultivate the land and to make up for their deficiency in the usual branches of farming by concentrating on wheat, barley and beet. The rearing of pigs was largely abandoned owing to the scarcity of feeding stuffs and the high price of wheat was only a poor substitute.

Owing to intensive tillage, it is true that the soil is getting worn out. It is well known that many farmers tilled more than what was compulsory during the war years; some indeed went so far as to have nearly one-half of their farms under tillage counting the first year's hay, if not the second. That intensive cultivation has so opened up the soil that it has the appearance of being run out and sadly in want of a rest."

The article continues:

"Still there is some profit in wheat and beet, and there is the dilemma. This will not be solved as a problem until the Government ruling about cultivating a certain percentage of the farms is changed. And then the matter will follow the usual law of demand and supply for there does not seem to be any other incentive to produce unless a Government subsidy is forthcoming. Of course the subsidy that should have been given to the farmers, three pounds an acre, was given to the millers, and why? —it is hard to say. It is one of the many mysteries of money going the wrong way."

That article appeared in a paper that supports the Government. All over Ireland I notice that growers have been asking for Louth wheat. At one meeting I saw it stated that in Leitrim and Longford they liked to get seed wheat from Louth. If the Minister were in the House I would say to him that money made on wheat-growing went more to outsiders. We thought, when doing what was required of us, that we would have the State behind us at all times. As to the possibility of growing potatoes, we find that that is not an aid to good farming. On the contrary, potatoes are tremendously heavy feeders on manures which are both scarce and dear. There is nothing like the same incentive to good farming in potatoes that follow beet-growing. We see no justice in the rule which prohibits, or tends to prohibit us, from growing one of the two crops that have fixed prices, wheat and beet. I was opposed to the present Government but they brought in one magnificent scheme which was well thought out as far as it went and for which they deserve every credit. What on earth this year caused the Government to put their foot down with regard to the wheat scheme, I do not know. In Louth we have spectacles that stare us in the face in our idle breweries and ruined malt stores.

A foreign Government looked calmly on the growth of one great concern, Guinness, while the smaller breweries went down one by one. Here we have a State-controlled industry with the Minister for Finance sending representatives to its meetings and permitting two or three counties in Ireland to be charged 15/- a ton for the carriage of beet. Unlike milk, which is under individual ownership, cattle, barley or oats, which are not State-controlled, beet is fully controlled. There is no reason why it should not be distributed and its assets conferred on every member of the community just as when the State decided to erect these sugar factories.

I do not believe that anyone can fail to see the justice of our case, because, be it remembered, we have been prejudiced severely in some of these Border counties. The separation of the northern markets from us is a serious handicap. More serious still is the fact that when the basis for our rents and our rates was founded in the courts, we were assessed highly, because of our close proximity to the markets of Liverpool and Manchester. These markets have gone, and gone absolutely. We have suffered other bad effects in the closing down of our small breweries, a closing which was permitted and tolerated, while a big brewery was growing up the river from here.

We have millers now and evidently the millers have some say in the basic price of wheat this year. I see that there is a row in Tipperary about it and, though it does not affect me, I hope that the Government will not allow itself to be persuaded to alter its magnificent scheme. I hope that they will see their way to implement it again to enable beet and wheat-growing to flourish. We are coming now to a period of the year when we must start thinking of laying down our land. I am not satisfied with the way the Department has done its business in the matter of supplies of deep-rooting grass seeds.

These deep-rooting grass seeds do not seem to be procurable anywhere, but if they do succeed in procuring them they will grow best on a sward from a corn crop following beet. I appeal to the Minister to give his sympathetic consideration to this motion on behalf of the beet growers of Louth and Meath.

I second the motion. I believe that Senator McGee has made an unanswerable case for a uniform price for the carriage of beet to the factories from any part of the country. I do not grow beet and I am speaking only as one interested in the justice of the case. Wheat growers are practically in the same position as beet growers, and no matter in what part of the country the wheat is produced, the only amount that can be deducted is 6/- for its transport from the farm. Why cannot the same thing be applied to beet?

I have great sympathy for the people who grow beet. It can be a very slavish crop particularly in the lifting and putting of it on the roadside for transport. Some of those transport companies are fairly stern about their regulations. I understand that in many cases they give a week's notice to the grower to have his beet planked on the roadside on such a day and if he is not ready on that day, he might have to wait for another fortnight or three weeks before a lorry would turn up. All these are difficulties with which the beet grower has to contend. No matter what sort of weather it is, he must have his crop transferred to the side of the road on the day named by the carrying company.

An excellent case has been made for uniform transport charges no matter where the beet is grown, or whether it is sent to Mallow, Thurles or Tuam. I understand from what Senator McGee has said that Carlow is in an exceptional position. There may be two farmers in the same area, one of whom might get permission to send his beet to Thurles or Mallow for 6/- a ton. His neighbour might have to send his beet to the Carlow factory at 13/- a ton or even more, sometimes as high as £1. That is unjust and the Senator has made an unanswerable case for a flat rate.

At first sight I am rather puzzled by the proposal in the motion. The motion is to request the Minister for Finance to make representations to the sugar company. I am wondering whether in fact the object could not be achieved with far more hope of success if all the parties interested in the growing of beet went direct to the transport company.

You omit the point.

Anyone with a knowledge of transport knows that the greatest cost is the actual loading or unloading. These costs of loading and unloading are met with in all sections of our national economy, wheat and turf as well as beet and other things which the railway system is carrying in huge quantities. Surely, it would be a businesslike approach to the problem for the body of growers to get together, ascertain the volume of tonnage and suggest to the company that there should be a flat rate for the whole of this country or such portions of it as we legislate for, or a flat rate for zones of the country, to avoid inequalities. Any businessman must agree that where you are in competition it is essential that your competitors will compete on level terms as far as possible. I would throw out that suggestion—go in a body to the company which actually carries the goods.

Senator McGee has made a very good case for the long-distance growers. We have discussed this matter very often in the Beet Growers' Association, but the association has never been able to arrive at a united front and has never been able to approach the sugar company or the Minister with a united front. Senator McGee stated that the subsidies to Thurles, Mallow and Tuam were the same, and that they were paid in excess of 8/- per ton. That is not so. In Tuam, the subsidy they receive is in excess of 6/-. That is to say, where a grower has 12/- to pay, 6/- of that is paid by the sugar company. It is thus over 6/- in Tuam and over 8/- per ton in Thurles and Mallow, so that the subsidy is not the same in each case. There is a slight subsidy also in Carlow, but it is very slight, for the simple reason that growers around the factory are able to raise sufficient beet for its needs and the company does not see any wisdom in subsidising long-distance growers. If Senator McGee's motion is passed and put into operation, it will defeat its own end, because the sugar company will tend to get beet grown in the immediate vicinity of the factory or within a 50 miles radius. If the motion be passed, it must apply to all articles of agricultural production. If I send live stock from Cork to Dublin, they must be sent at the same rate as live stock would be sent from Louth to Dublin. The same must apply to milk. I do not want to undermine the case made by Senator McGee. He has made a good case and if he were to approach the Beet Growers' Association and put his case to them as he has put it here, I am sure he would get sympathy from them.

I notice from the discussion that there is a difference of opinion amongst members of the Seanad and amongst beet growers as to the merits of the case so well made by Senator McGee. I am not free to discuss with them or with the House the merits of the case. As the Seanad is aware, the sugar company functions in the same way as any other company. There is no interference with its activities by the Minister for Finance. It is not the intention that there should be. I think that members of the House will agree that, when a company is set up, it should be the duty and responsibility of that company to make its decisions in a business like way, having regard to all the interests involved.

While not hoping to succeed in giving satisfaction to every interest, the decisions of such a company should, broadly, be the best that could be reached in all the circumstances. I do not know, anything about the members of the sugar company, but I should be surprised to learn that they were not people capable of examining, and anxious to examine, all the features of the case to which Senator McGee has referred, and all the other features to which others could, I am sure, refer. Even if the Minister himself were here, I do not think that he could do more, having regard to our approach to matters of this kind in the past, than say that we see no objection to drawing the attention of the sugar company to the remarks made here, and to the remarks made in this House when the Appropriation Bill was before it. That is the only assurance I can give on this fairly complicated matter.

The House finds itself in a rather difficult position when, a motion having been moved and seconded, the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Minister, tells the House that he is not free to discuss it. The House feels that it can have only one side of the case. I do not know if there is anybody in the House with sufficient information on the merits to let us have the other side. The House knows that we have amongst us a director of the sugar company, but I do not think that he should be called upon to answer here for the behaviour of that company. Certain aspects of this case strike me as aspects which demand consideration by the House, and a recommendation from the House, in view of the fact that the sugar company is operating under an Act of the Oireachtas. The sugar company implements, so to speak, the policy of the Minister and of the Government, to have sufficient sugar beet grown here and manufactured to provide sugar for the citizens of the State. Taxes are levied to that end. It is almost impossible to imagine that, in the carrying out of this policy, there is no consultation between the sugar company and the Ministry from time to time. Whether there is or not, the aim of the Government is to get produced such a quantity of beet as will give all the citizens a sufficient quantity of sugar.

The Government must inquire as to how best that policy can be achieved. The most effective method known to them up to the present has been to raise the price of beet. They tried various offers to the growers. In one area, where a beet factory was established, they found that the farmers would not grow beet at the price fixed. Even in Carlow, where the first factory was founded, they discovered that the area under beet was falling year after year and the price had to be considerably increased.

If the purpose is to get maximum production of a particular crop, one must have an appreciation of what is the cost of production of that crop on marginal land, whether the crop be beet, or wheat, or potatoes. When fixing the price, one must do so at such a figure as will make it possible for the owner of marginal land profitably to produce the crop. The beet growers of County Louth are growing beet on what one might describe as marginal land. Whatever their yields are, their net cash return per acre, or per ton, is, apparently, lower than the price paid to growers in any other part of the country. I do not know what the beet growers will do in the circumstances. If Senator McGee were not so loud in his praises of the tillage efforts in Louth, he might have greater success. If he were prepared to organise his beet growers and to say "Not one acre of beet will we grow," he would, probably, be able to make these people sit up and bring them up against the situation to which Senator O'Callaghan has referred, of trying to find within a given area around Carlow, Tuam, Mallow and Thurles such a number of additional growers as would make up for the quantity of beet which the Louth growers were no longer prepared to produce. Until there is such a situation, there may not be an appreciation of what is equitable.

Considering the equities of the case, all my sympathy is with the people of Louth. If the production which you get from Louth or Meath is essential in order to give the present ration of sugar to consumers, then I think you are on a tight rope all the time. You are taking risks and you are up against a situation in which you may find yourselves unable to deliver the goods. There is no doubt that it takes as much to grow an acre of beet in Louth as in Carlow or anywhere else. From the point of view of the labour in the fields, if it is going to cost 8/- in Carlow and 15/- in Louth or Meath it simply means that the Louth grower, on his eight or nine tons, is going to get £3 less for his acre than the grower in Carlow or the grower in Kildare. All this money is being collected by the Government from the taxpayers and passed on to the growers. If the production of beet is necessary for the well-being and proper nutrition of our people, and if the Government fixes a certain price per ton, the price received by the grower should be the same whether he resides in Carlow, Kildare, Meath or anywhere else. If the sugar company are to ensure the supply of beet necessary for the country they should be a little bit more sympathetic to the growers in Louth. If they are up against it and have to look to some area other than Louth they may find that it will be necessary to have a compromise, and I think they would be much happier if they agreed to reasonable demands now without being forced to do so at a later stage.

With reference to consultations, which I think Senator Baxter and some other Senators mentioned, the position is as I stated in the beginning, that there are 15 representatives from each of the factory areas on the association. On that association there are only two representatives from Louth and Meath, so that we are in a small minority, and on all deputations the representatives of other areas outnumber us. Then the sugar company lacks the vision to deal with our demands in an equitable way. I was rather nervous when Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Duffy mentioned the case of companies which are outside Government control on a previous occasion because this motion was then pending. We knew we were being treated in Louth and Meath by the sugar company with a complete absence of national outlook but we were silent at the time although we felt that our position was receding. One can understand the difficulties of the Department of Finance in having surrounded itself with such companies but broadly speaking our claim is unanswerable. We are beet growers comparable in efficiency to all others in the country and we are entitled to be paid the maximum price which other growers receive. Possibly the absence of sympathy amongst other beet growers is responsible for our position.

I read in the Irish Press the other day a description of the oiling of the wheels and the greasing of the machinery in Carlow, in which it was said that the smell brought delight to the entire surrounding locality. One of the growers in Louth happened to remark to me: “I wonder will we get a whiff of it up here?” The boys are getting full advantage of it in these counties in some of which commissioners had to be put in. We had not to get any commissioner but I can picture some places where managers will eventually have to be appointed. We have been refused admission to the sacred doors in Clare Street. Every time we have asked, the reply was in the negative. There is a case to be examined in justice to these people who have more difficulties to contend with than perhaps the people of any other county in Ireland. I am not wholly unprepared for the defeat of this motion. I took some little risk in bringing it forward but I leave it where it is.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the motion being withdrawn?

I leave it to the House to do with it what they wish.

Motion put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.40 p.m.sine die.
Top
Share