Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Jul 1959

Vol. 51 No. 9

Grass Meal (Production) (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

Senators are already aware—apart altogether from the debate on the Industrial Grants Bill— that the principle of providing financial assistance from State funds to facilitate the establishment of industries in parts of the country which suffer from competitive disadvantages such as remoteness from the main centres of consumption and from supplies of industrial raw materials has been accepted in the Undeveloped Areas Acts and now in the Industrial Grants Bill.

The purpose of this Bill is to deal with a special case of this sort by providing for the establishment of a limited company to revive the project for the production of grass meal from grass grown on reclaimed bogland in the Bangor Erris area, Co. Mayo. I do not know how many Senators are familiar with that area but those who are, will know it as a vast area in which development of any sort is practically impossible because of the peculiar type of bogland in the area. When I first saw it, it reminded me of a prairie of bog. Scattered through it are a number of houses in which people are living and it was a matter of amazement to me that they were able to eke out a living in any way from these lands.

The setting up of the original Grass Meal Company was designed to provide relief for these people in some way, not only for the purpose of providing immediate employment but as a long-term policy of bringing these lands into a condition that would enable them to be cultivated, thus providing a living for a greater number of people in the area. The basis of the project was that after an initial development period of five years grass meal would be produced competitively from grass grown on reclaimed bogland without a continuing subsidy. There was such an extent of bogland there that the ultimate intention was to move to another area in the immediate vicinity having reclaimed the first area and put it into a state of productivity.

The present Bill provides for the amendment of the Grass Meal (Production) Act, 1953. This Act provided for the establishment of a limited company—Min Fhéir Teoranta—to undertake the drainage and cultivation of bogland in the Bangor Erris area, the processing of grass and other plants for sale including, in particular, the manufacture of grass meal, and the carrying on of kindred and incidental activities. It provided that the nominal share capital of the company would be £100,000 to be subscribed by the Minister for Finance, and it also provided for grants not exceeding in the aggregate £165,000 out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas to be applied in defraying capital expenses.

Min Fhéir Teo. was incorporated in March, 1954 and commenced operations in the Spring of 1954 on the ploughing and sod fencing of lands at Glenamoy, leased from Bord na Móna. I should have mentioned that Bord na Móna had already acquired most of this land in the area and they found that some of the bogland they had acquired was not suitable for their particular purposes. It was blanket bog as opposed to the deep, wide bogs that they required for turf production. Blanket bog is comparatively shallow and of limited extent and, for that reason, Bord na Móna found it unsuitable and therefore they were able to lease it to this company at a comparatively low rent.

On the change of Government in 1954 an inter-Departmental Committee was set up. They examined the economies and finances of this company. There is a reference in the report of a subsequent committee—to which I shall refer later—to the terms of reference of the inter-Departmental Committee. The committee said that there was no evidence to suggest that Min Fhéir Teo. would or should exist except on the basis that the mainspring of its activities would be the commercial production of grass meal.

Paragraph 13, at page 10 of the report of the Committee on the Glenamoy Grass Meal Project further states:

For this reason, the committee—— that is the inter-Departmental Committee of 1954——

felt that their function was, not so much to assess the desirability of the social objectives of a regional character hoped to be achieved by the grass meal project, but rather to review the economic and financial effects likely to flow from an attempt to attain these objectives by continuance of the Company's activities.

Therefore it will be seen that the committee set up by the previous Government approached their examination not so much on a social basis but purely from a financial and economic background.

This committee reported at the end of 1954 or early in 1955 and following the receipt of the report, which recommended that the grass meal project should be discontinued, the then Government decided that the plans for the erection of a grass meal factory should be abandoned and that portion of the lands occupied by the Company should be used by the Department of Agriculture for experiments on the reclamation of blanket bog, and that the balance of the lands should be used by the Department of Lands for afforestation purposes. In accordance with these decisions the affairs of the Company were wound up early in 1956.

I might say at this stage that the original Grass Meal Company had already reclaimed a considerable portion of the bogland at Glenamoy and at a cost much lower than they had originally anticipated. The ultimate user of that portion of the bog had the advantage of the original drainage and reclamation. That user was known as the Peatlands Research Station which, as I have said, was undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands. These activities are still going on and there is no intention of interrupting them.

A committee was appointed by my predecessor in August, 1957, to examine the practicability of reviving the project. Their report, which was unanimous, was published in November, 1958, and that is the report from which I have quoted. The committee considered that grass meal can be produced competitively in relation to current market prices from grass grown on reclaimed bogland after a period of five years from the commencement of reclamation. They also considered that, taking account of the potential home and export trade, a market over and above that catered for, or likely to be catered for, by existing grass meal producers, should be capable of development to provide an outlet for the output of a plant at Glenamoy. They recommended that the project should be revived, that an independent statutory company should be established to operate the project and that the Company should be provided with a sum not exceeding £165,000 by way of non-repayable grant to defray capital expenses and a further sum of £30,000 in the form of share capital for working capital.

The present Bill provides for the establishment of a limited company, Min Fhéir (1959) Teoranta, to which, with certain amendments, the provisions of the Grass Meal (Production) Act, 1953, shall apply. The principal amendment proposed in the provisions of the 1953 Act is that the share capital of the Company shall be £200,000 instead of £100,000, the provision for the making of grants up to £165,000 to the Company being at the same time dropped. This is the normal method of financing a company undertaking activities of an industrial or commercial character and has been adopted on the advice of the Minister for Finance who will subscribe the share capital.

I need not emphasise the very great need, on social and economic grounds, for providing suitable employment opportunities in areas such as that in which the project will operate, or the competitive disadvantages which make industrial development in such areas a matter of peculiar difficulty. As indicated by me when the Bill was before the Dáil, the motivating factor in the setting up of the Grass Meal Project is the social problem of relieving to some extent the uneconomic conditions of North Mayo. By means of initial expenditure on reclamation, bogs can be brought into cultivation and made to contribute permanently to the economic wellbeing of the area and of the country as a whole. I do not claim that this measure will provide a cure for the entire social and economic ills of the area. The project will, however, afford employment for a certain number of workers there and will result in the economic utilisation of areas of bogland that might otherwise have remained unproductive for many years. I recommend the Bill to the House, and I hope it will meet with the approval of Senators.

Mr. O'Quigley

This Bill is largely a technical Bill and, if the committee established in August 1957 is correct in its assessment of the future of the company which it is proposed to establish under this Bill, everybody should support the Bill. If the committee is not correct in its assessment, then this is a Bill that should not be supported. The matter is of such a technical character that it is very difficult for ordinary lay people to make up their minds as to what should be done. My inclination would be in the direction of supporting this Bill but it seems to me, on reading the Dáil Report, that the prospects for the success of this company are not very great.

Mr. J. Lynch

Did the Senator read the committee's report?

Mr. O'Quigley

No, but I have read the correctives to that report. The Minister has not given any indication as to whether or not there are other companies engaged in the production of grass meal.

Mr. J. Lynch

I did. I mentioned that fact in my opening speech.

Mr. O'Quigley

I certainly did not hear that it was emphasised but I gather that there are five or six other companies engaged in that business in this country and that they are able to fulfil the requirements of the Irish market. I also gather that in Britain some companies that engaged in the production of grass meal have closed down and there is a possibility that, on the introduction of this Bill, if this company is to succeed, some other company engaged in the production of this commodity will close down in some other part of the country. If that is to be the result, it does not seem to me to be good economics.

However, as I say, my inclination is to support a measure of this kind and I would do so readily if I were at all satisfied that the prospects before this company were as bright as the Minister appears to think they are because I know the area which the Minister speaks about very well and it is, as he picturesquely described it, a prairie of bogland and the surprising thing is that so many people have existed in that area for so long. That is my attitude towards the Bill in general.

The Minister said towards the end of his speech that when this company gets under way it will employ a certain number of people. I should imagine that the Minister could be a little more specific as to the number of people likely to be employed initially and eventually. I notice that, in relation to the much more difficult proposition that we shall probably be dealing with later to-night, the provision of a transatlantic air service, Aer Rianta was able to forecast the likely outcome of its trading in the first, second and third years. Perhaps the Minister might be able to give the House the benefit of the assessment of the committee established in August, 1957, as to the prospects of this company in the first, second and third years.

There is only one other matter that calls for comment. It really has nothing to do with this Bill but it is relevant in so far as the Minister has raised it in his speech on the Second Stage. He said that the company established in 1953, which came into existence in 1954, acquired land from Bord na Móna who, apparently, had acquired large tracts of bog which proved unsuitable for their purposes. That is a most interesting statement.

Mr. J. Lynch

Do not misunderstand me. They had to take certain areas and were able to discard some of the land as being unsuitable. As the Senator knows, they could not carve it up as they liked. They had to take certain areas.

Mr. O'Quigley

That might be so but the way the Minister put it suggested to me that Bord na Móna, one of the State-sponsored bodies about which we hear so much, had acquired large tracts of bogland in North Mayo which were unsuitable for their purposes and that meant to me that public money had been expended for a purpose which could not be realised. The Minister qualifies that by saying they had to take the good with the bad, the rough with the smooth. The reason the point appealed to me so much was that I had known a case where Bord na Móna acquired bogland from a man and paid him his money and he had no title to it, good, bad or indifferent. I was wondering was this another of the operations of the State-sponsored bodies over which Parliament can exercise no control.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That hare will not run.

Mr. Carter

That can be challenged in the courts. You have your remedy if he had no title.

Mr. O'Quigley

He had gone to America. He was a clever joker.

Mr. Ryan

This project has a history of some years and it is one of the admirable projects, such as the transatlantic air line and the chassis factory, which were unfortunately abandoned by the Coalition Governments. The project also suffered from a certain difference of opinion between the Department of Agriculture and the Sugar Company. The Department of Agriculture seemed to be against the project whereas the Sugar Company gave evidence at the original committee which indicated that the project had good prospects of success.

One gathers from the facts contained in the report that the reasons offered against the project by the Department of Agriculture were largely theoretical whereas the reasons offered in its favour by the Sugar Company were largely practical reasons based on the experience which the Sugar Company had gained from work of the same type. When it comes to evidence offered by two witnesses of this kind, unlike some of the Senators on the other side of the House, I am inclined to accept the evidence of the person who has practical experience rather than that of the person who is offering purely theoretical evidence. The committee which reported in 1958 made a very comprehensive review of this project—a very much more comprehensive review, I think it is fair to say, than that made by the inter-Departmental Committee in 1954.

Mr. J. Lynch

The Senator does not know that because it was never published.

Mr. Ryan

From the people from whom evidence was taken by the 1958 committee, which mentioned that far less evidence was taken by the earlier committee, I think it is fair to say that the 1958 committee gave a much more comprehensive review of the project. Having considered the matter fully, this committee came down firmly with the recommendation that grass meal could be produced competitively from grass grown on reclaimed bog and that this could be done without a subsidy.

The vast majority of Senators, I would say, have no personal knowledge of this very technical subject. We have got to rely very largely on the report of this committee. This committee has made a very definite recommendation that grass meal can be produced competitively. Unless somebody can produce very definite evidence and technical details to show that the committee is wrong, I certainly would be inclined to accept its recommendations rather than accept comments by members of the Dáil who had no particular qualifications to comment on this very technical subject.

The committee has come down with a recommendation that grass meal can be produced competitively. Having examined the position very carefully, they say that the home and export markets can absorb what the project is likely to produce. They say that at the moment the market can absorb it and that the market is, in fact, expanding. It is clear from this report that the project will, in fact, show a profit.

Purely from the commercial point of view, this project will show a profit and can be a success. But we would be wrong to consider it purely from the commercial point of view. Apart from the social advantages of the initiation of this grass meal factory, it is very heartening to be assured it will also show a profit commercially.

It is, of course, of great importance that this factory will provide employment in an area where it is extremely difficult to find employment and where any employment provided, and particularly employment in a company of this size, will be peculiarly welcome and very important to a very large surrounding area. It will, for instance, obviate the necessity of providing land in the midlands for the small-holders in this area, which is a congested area. As Senators are well aware, the problem of finding land in the midlands and eastern counties for people in the congested districts is becoming increasingly difficult. Consequently, any project of this kind, which will obviate the necessity even in a few dozen cases of providing alternative holdings, is a very important and welcome one. I presume that, ultimately, the land developed for the production of grass meal will be divided up and handed over to the farmers, thus relieving congestion in that area.

This industry is one which has the merit of having its raw materials provided here at home. Many industries set up here from time to time have been criticised because they are said to be artificial in the sense that all their raw materials have to be imported and that it is unlikely to be economic to import all the raw materials and then try and export the produce. Consequently, any industry based on native raw materials is likely to be a good one. In that respect this industry certainly starts off on the right foot. From that point of view, therefore, and from the other point of view I mentioned, this project should be welcomed. It is something which, not only from the social point of view but from the financial point of view, is likely to be a success, and I certainly think the House should welcome it.

Mr. McGuire

Senators often use the phrase that they did not intend to intervene in a debate but that what somebody said reminded them of something. That applies to me on this occasion. I had not read this Bill very carefully. We have been having a number of Bills lately, and I confined myself to those about which I thought I knew something. When I saw "grassmeal" I did not think it had very much to do with me but Senator O'Quigley has remarked that this is another State body which is being set up.

I happen to know the owners and directors of some other existing companies in this line of business. I was shown over one of these factories and it seemed to me to be a very well-run business. I should like to ask the Minister is there a sufficient market? I am in favour of competition, but I think it should be fair competition and not competition by the State. In this whole question of State bodies competing with private enterprise we are being told all the time that the State will operate only where private enterprise has failed or is unable to fulfil the function required.

I happen to have in my bag, sent to me this morning, a catalogue sent out by the Great Southern Hotels. This is a linen catalogue showing all the goods I sell. Surely nobody can say that the drapery distributing trade is not fully provided for? Here we are setting up a new body and I should like to ask the Minister: will it compete with people already in the grassmeal business? To come back to this catalogue, it is headed: "It is so easy to shop in Ireland." This was sent by a gentleman to my son with the following note:

I have just returned from a visit to London. While in the Irish Tourist Office I noticed this brochure enclosed herewith. I thought you would be interested in seeing it. In case you had not already done so, I took one back to show you.

This is the tourist office run with Government money, provided by Bord Fáilte, I take it?

The catalogue, which is excellently turned out, says: "The shop in this hotel is open each day from 8 a.m. to 11.30 p.m." In private enterprise you are not allowed to keep your shop open until 11.30 p.m. The unions have a very quick answer for you. We were made to close our business at 5.30 p.m. during the war. Now we are trying to get the union to agree to longer shopping hours in Dublin, as they should, to enable us meet the situation to-day. C.I.E. can keep the place open from 8 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. I hope the same principle will not operate in relation to this Bill.

When I was in Galway recently at a meeting, and similarly in Killarney, I was approached by the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce on this very subject. I was told in Killarney that they had people coming into Killarney when the shops were closing on Saturday night and leaving on Sunday morning, and these people shopped in the C.I.E. hotel shops. That sort of thing is happening all over the place. Yesterday I overheard two customers. One said to the other: "No, we will not buy it here. We will buy it in Shannon. It is cheaper." Incidentally it is not cheaper to buy in Shannon. It is 15 per cent. dearer.

It has often been said that the State will operate only where private enterprise fails. Will that principle be adhered to now? It is one thing for State bodies to provide a service which private enterprise cannot provide, but if this principle is to be projected now into a market, which is already very limited as far as private enterprise is concerned, I am afraid we shall end up with a completely socialistic State, and in a very short time. That will not be the fault of private enterprise. Private enterprise is asked to pay the piper when State companies do not succeed; when they do succeed, they take money out of the pocket of private enterprise.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Tonight, I have heard for the first time Senator McGuire speaking in this House. I am disappointed in what he has said because in this matter private enterprise will not go into Bangor Erris. I have never been in Bangor Erris, but I know what blanket bog is like.

Mr. McGuire

I used it as a convenient peg on which to hang a hat.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I am disappointed Senator McGuire failed to give everybody a fair crack of the whip.

Mr. McGuire

I merely asked a question relative to the Bill.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

The Senator said this State Company would interfere with private enterprise.

Mr. McGuire

No. I asked would it? I said others have done so.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

That is like the "buts" and the "ifs" that we heard about yesterday.

Mr. McGuire

I asked a question.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order!

Seán Ó Donnabháin

There are grass meal companies in existence at the moment. I presume they are producing grass meal economically and selling it satisfactorily. The Minister has said that there are two markets available, export and domestic. In this instance I take it the emphasis will be on export. In other words, the project will not interfere with existing grass meal producers.

Mr. McGuire

I hope that is so. That is what I am asking.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I hope so also. I anticipate that is the intention. I do not believe private enterprise would face into Bangor Erris. From what the Minister has said, I understand five years will elapse before this blanket bog will produce sufficient grass for conversion into grassmeal. A great deal of employment will be provided in the preparation and reclamation of this bog. I understand when the project is brought to fruition there, a similar project will be started in another area. That will give us systematic reclamation of blanket bog. I know how difficult it is to produce crops on bog of this nature. The late Senator Baxter spoke very favourably, indeed, about the work done by Comhlúcht Siuicre Éireann at Gowla. I understand that is a deep bog and would, from that point of view, present difficulty in relation to drainage and preparation for the ultimate production of crops.

I understand from what the Minister has said that, contemporaneously with the preparation of the bog for the production of grassmeal, work will also be put in hands from the point of view of agriculture and forestry. I think that is an excellent idea. I have had experience of the difficulty of growing trees on bog consisting of humus and with very little of nutritive value. I think trees are about the most difficult thing one can try to grow on bog. I have spoken here before about planting cut-away bogs. In the cut-away bog there is something more than merely the peat humus and so there would be a greater prospect of success from an afforestation point of view. However, I think the three should be combined—grass meal, agriculture and forestry. The forestry work will provide a shelter belt for the other operations.

I do not think anybody should object to this project. Nobody can claim that this industry should be established elsewhere. I commend the Bill to the House. I hope it will show profitable results for the people in Bangor Erris and ultimately for the nation as a whole.

Professor Quinlan

In this Bill, there is something far more important at stake than whether or not this venture at Bangor Erris will be a commercial success. To my way of thinking what is happening here undermines our whole system of getting expert advice and acting upon that advice. Most Government decisions are based on the advice tendered by Departmental officials; when further advice is called for, and inter-Departmental committee is established and the report of that committee is highly regarded by Governments in all countries. The report represents the consensus of opinion of Government servants.

We have here a report of such a committee which, in 1954, recommended against this project. One has there the amazing situation in which the costings of the company, Min Fhéir Teoranta, are entirely different from the costings of the Department of Agriculture. Obviously Min Fhéir Teoranta wanted to stay in business. They give a costing—I quote from the report—of £17 per acre and the Department of Agriculture give a costing of £28 odd per acre. In other words, where are we going with expert advice if we have those two different estimates, one given by the Department of Agriculture which is now openly derided? It is actually condemned by the Minister concerned.

To my mind that seems to undermine our whole confidence in the impartiality and efficiency of our civil service. There is a paragraph here that actually shocked me. I quote from Volume 176, column 1258, of the Official Report of the Dáil Debate where the Minister, Mr. J. Lynch, says:

Again I want to repeat that I do not know who these civil servants were. They were set up by Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Dillon and they were very well aware of the attitude of Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Dillon to this whole project. It is hard to blame them if they had a certain bias, by reason of the fact that these were two very important Ministers, towards their examination —perhaps an unconscious bias to the project that they had before them.

To my mind that is a very serious accusation, that these inter-Departmental committees, if a Minister knows how to set them up properly, can get the answer he wants.

Then we have this other committee set up in 1957. We have the report of that committee here before us and it apparently ridicules the previous one. In other words, the passage of this Bill is in effect a condemnation of the reliability of the Department of Agriculture. I have criticised the Department heavily many times myself but I wonder is that really what members of the Seanad want? That is what you are doing, and that is what you are opening the workings of Departments to in the future.

Mr. Ryan

Does the Senator think the Departments are always right?

Mr. L'Estrange

No, you are always right.

Professor Quinlan

It comes to the question of one costing of £28 per acre as against another of £17 per acre, put up by the interested party, the party with the vested interest.

Mr. Ryan

Obviously one is wrong.

Professor Quinlan

We got one foolish costing of 2½d. a gallon for the production of milk. In the circumstances, there is a way of finding out these things and that way has increased considerably since 1954. It has increased because there is now an experimental station in Glenamoy which is doing very good work, and which is available for giving costings for what it would cost per acre to do this. If that station is not capable of providing such simple costings, reliably attested, it should not be in the research business.

Personally I do not know the names of the members of the inter-Departmental Committee but, from what I can gather, there could have been very few members of the Department of Agriculture on it, seeing they were cited as the body that gave evidence. Certainly it was inter-Departmental and I am quite prepared to state, without knowing their names, that these men were at least as good as those who signed the present report. I am not casting aspersions on the men who signed the present report when I make that statement because I am only paying tribute to the top civil servants, the men who would naturally be selected to take part in the inter-Departmental Committee. I do not know if this is the first time that a Government, in endeavouring to excuse a change of mind, has tried to place the blame on its own civil servants. Apparently the whole kingpin of the costings hinges on the estimates given by the Irish Sugar Company for its work at Gowla.

I would make one practical suggestion now. This Bill is going through so why not hand over the whole lot, lock, stock and barrel, to the Irish Sugar Company, and even make them a present of this £200,000 of the taxpayers' money? Appoint their board en bloc as the board of this new company and let us see what success they can make of producing grass meal. I make that suggestion and I think the Irish Sugar Company, being prepared to stand behind their figures, should welcome the opportunity of that challenge.

The other point is this appeal that we must do something for the Glenamoy region. I heartily agree with that but, if we have £200,000 to spend, the place to spend it is on the existing installation there. I am aware of the excellent work done there under the direction of Dr. Walsh, now head of the Agricultural Institute. I know the force and the dynamism he has put into that, and the feeling he has for the people in the West and if he were given £200,000 he would confer far more lasting benefit on the West than ever this grass meal factory would confer. This is the problem about which Senator Ó Donnabháin seemed to be rather confused—wanting systematic reclamation of the bog land and wanting it linked with other activities. He pictured farms being made available. Surely that type of work, if that is what is desirable, is far more appropriate to the present work carried out by the Department of Agriculture in Glenamoy? I think this work is more appropriate to the Agricultural Institute than to this body that, by its terms of reference, will be set up to do one job—the making of grass meal—and will be prevented from having the flexibility of changing by the fact that it will have a big investment in the plant necessary for the production of grass meal.

Again, if you want to spend the money in this region, if you spend it on grass meal how much will go out of the region in the cost of plant? If you spend on research even one shilling of it there, it will remain in that region, and there will be no extra cost for work done elsewhere. You have the whole Agricultural Institute able and willing to make a complete success of that.

Finally, I am treating this Bill solely on the principles involved. We are faced with two conflicting reports and the way to resolve that is to ask the Agricultural Institute to conduct a costings investigation. There is also the fact that grave doubt has been cast, due to the fact that grass meal factories have closed down in England recently. I appeal to the Minister to consider giving this money for relief in that region, for the development of that region, to the body doing research in Glenamoy. Alternatively, if he does not do that, hand it over to the Irish Sugar Company and give them this £200,000 from the taxpayer.

Mr. Cole

I welcome this Bill, for the fact that it may result in a company that will give us a profit, or a return, but I would welcome it more if the words in the title of the Bill "in the Bangor Erris area" were omitted. It would then be an Act to authorise the Minister for Industry and Commerce to promote a company for the acquisition, drainage and cultivation of boglands. I look on this project, to a certain extent, in that light, that it is an experiment, and that out of this experiment great things may come.

I am particularly inclined to take that view when I read in page 15 of the Report on the Glenamoy Grass Meal Project that a Mr. Gamble, a former inspector of the Land Commission, gave evidence of previous small experiments in this way. He said that very good crops had been obtained on the cultivated areas and that he felt that the schemes would have had every chance of success if each allottee had been provided with 15 or 20 acres of reclaimed land, whereas in actual fact they had only a few acres for each allottee.

On page 42, we read that the Director of the Norwegian Bog Association in a paper entitled "Economic and Social Importance of Bogs in Norway” said:

...over 300,000 acres of bog representing about 14% of the total area of land under cultivation in the country have been brought into use in Norway for agricultural purposes.

That is the long term view of what this might mean and that is why I would support and welcome the Bill. As regards its effect in this country, I take it that the first effect will be to a certain extent its employment value. I think I saw somewhere in the Report that at least 140 or 150 men were mentioned as a possibility for full all-year-round employment, but, first of all, it was probably introduced there as an employment venture and secondly, with the possibility that it would pay its way, apart from the necessary initial capital.

The third possibility is the possibility of gaining knowledge and bringing the knowledge gained to reclaiming vast areas of bog elsewhere. Travelling around the country, I see small farms on the edges of bogs and small plots of land of one or two acres which the farmers themselves have obviously, through manuring and cultivation, reclaimed from the bog. I have often wondered how much more we might do in that respect on the edges of bog by reclaiming, perhaps, small amounts. As Mr. Gamble said, if 30 acres were added to the holding on the edge of the bog, it would make it a commercial proposition for that man who could perhaps subsequently reclaim more on his own part. It is in that respect that I would support this Bill.

There is also the aspect Senator McGuire mentioned, that this will be, to a certain extent, in opposition to the private companies and, of course, all these State-financed companies or State-assisted companies naturally have an advantage, although, as we know, some of them are not able to compete with private companies, even though they have the initial advantage. In that respect, I welcome the last paragraph of the Report. I think it should be borne in mind, particularly by the Minister, that where these companies are in competition with existing producers, they should go so far as to say that the new company will not sell their product at a lesser price than the existing producers can get. In the first instance, they should try to export it and not compete, but then, in all fairness to the existing producers, they should say: "We will not sell our meal cheaper than you will." That would be only fair to the existing producers on the part of the companies who have State finances at their back.

Prof. Hayes

I take it, Sir, that the House will adjourn at 10 o'clock. There seems to be no prospect of finishing the business.

Mr. Lenihan

Not if Senator L'Estrange is to talk it out.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I understand that we were to make an effort to conclude the business on the Order Paper tonight. If the House thinks we cannot do that, we can only adjourn and meet next week.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Unless there is no hope of concluding the business on the Order Paper today. Is there a suggestion that the House should sit next week?

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Amárach.

Professor Hayes

Yesterday we agreed to sit late, if it was thought feasible that business would be concluded tonight but it does not seem to be feasible now. I said earlier, in answer to Senator Quinlan, that if we were in a certain frame of mind, we would finish today but we seem to be in the wrong frame of mind. There is no question now that we could possibly conclude all the business. Therefore we had better adjourn.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We can adjourn until next Wednesday or until September, but it is certainly very awkward——

Professor Hayes

If we have to meet, we have to meet. That is all.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We cannot possibly meet tomorrow because no member of the Government will be available, and if we cannot conclude the business tonight, we shall only have to meet on Wednesday.

Professor Hayes

Very good— Wednesday.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is it agreed the House will adjourn at 10 o'clock and meet at 3 o'clock on Wednesday next?

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Cad mar gheall ar amárach?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

At the conclusion of this Bill?

Professor Hayes

I would be agreeable to that, if it appears at 10 o'clock that this Bill will conclude in about half an hour, or if the Minister could get in at 10 o'clock, or could we adjourn this Bill until next Wednesday?

Mr. J. Lynch

It seemed to me as if it was just about to peter out, except for Senator L'Estrange.

Professor Hayes

I would not stand in the Minister's way if we thought at 10 o'clock that he could get in to conclude. I would agree to that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps we could take it that the House will finish this Bill if the Minister gets in at 10 o'clock or a few minutes after 10 o'clock.

Mr. L'Estrange

In my opinion, Senator Ó Donnabháin put his finger on the kernel of the whole question when he said that private enterprise would not go into Bangor Erris bog. If private enterprise would not go to Bangor Erris to use their money there, I do not see why the Minister or any Government, should gamble with the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Lenihan

What about Bord na Móna?

Mr. L'Estrange

Senator Cole said that he supported the Bill because the money that was spent on reclaiming land was money well spent. I think there is reasonably good land in this country that could be reclaimed and it would be much better, if we have money to spend, to spend it on that land, instead of trying to reclaim bogland because we have no proof that this bogland will ever make good or fertile arable land.

Mr. J. Lynch

We have plenty of proof.

Mr. L'Estrange

You have tried out certain experiments in Gowla Bog.

Mr. J. Lynch

And Cloosh 20 years ago.

Mr. L'Estrange

But you have no proof at the moment that it will continue.

Mr. J. Lynch

People are living and working on the land that was reclaimed there.

Mr. L'Estrange

On bogland?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Mr. L'Estrange

Where is the bogland?

Mr. J. Lynch

If the Senator reads the report he will see it.

Mr. L'Estrange

I read the report. I was reared beside the bogland and I know it would rob you to try to do anything with it, because you can apply artificial manure, lime it, drain it, sow crop on it, let it out, and in a few years, it has gone back into rushes again. I happen to know perhaps a little too much about bogland.

If we have money to spend, it would be better if we gave back some of the subsidy that has been taken from lime, if we reintroduced Section B of the Land Project, if we gave money to be spent again by the county councils under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That was work that was reasonably well done. It gave employment. We helped to reclaim and drain, in many cases, valuable land.

Senator Ryan said that this is an admirable project which was unfortunately abandoned by the inter-Party Government. The inter-Party Government abandoned it on the recommendation of an inter-Departmental Committee. I cannot agree with him that this is an admirable project. It is a daft project. It should be abandoned immediately, before the taxpayers' money is bogged down in it, never to be retrieved. That will definitely happen in this case.

We all know that grass meal is the raw material for the agricultural industry. It supplies the protein in the making of balanced rations. We know that protein is available at present at half the cost at which it is derived from grass meal. I am quite sure the Minister is aware of that. If we wanted to establish a grass meal factory or if the State wanted to go into competition with private enterprise and make a success of it, I think their grass meal factory should be established in the fertile Midlands—Meath, Kildare, Dublin, Limerick, Tipperary, Offaly or Westmeath—where good grass grows naturally.

We have no proof that if you lime this land, drain it, put phosphates, minerals, and so on, on it, it will continue to grow good grass or first-class grass for making into grass meal. You may have to put tons of lime and phosphates on that land every year, with the result that it is bound to be an uneconomic proposition. However, where you have fertile land and natural grass, it is bound to be an economic proposition.

The inter-Party Government wound up this piece of codology—that is all it is—and established one of the best peat land research stations in Europe which is an asset to County Mayo and to the nation. We are told that the demand for grass meal here at present is between 7,500 to 8,500 tons. The existing factories, under private enterprise, produce approximately 11,000 tons. They have a market here for between 7,500 to 8,500 tons and they have a surplus of 2,500 to 3,000 tons. Therefore, 25 per cent. or more of what they are making has to be exported. They are lucky enough to have a market for it in the Six Counties.

There is a glut of grass meal protein in Britain. Grass meal plants and factories have had to close down there. Senator Ryan shakes his head but he will have to admit that that is correct. What are we to do here? If we subsidise this project, will we close down some of the factories that are being run by private enterprise—people who have bought their own equipment and put their own money into it and who, without any financial assistance from this State, are making a good job of it and have made a good job of it up to the present? Undoubtedly that is what we shall do.

On the other hand, will we adopt the suggestion which appears at paragraph 56, page 34, of the Report of the Committee on the Glenamoy Grass Meal Project? Professor Sheehy said "it would be a reasonable to include grass meal in all these compounds and that it would be justified, though not necessary, on nutritive grounds to make this compulsory." We are going back to compulsion. Do we intend to make the farmer use something which he does not want to use? Will we put further taxation on our farmers in order to bolster up a shaky project? That is what Professor Sheehy is recommending there. I am not in favour of doing anything like that.

Our farmers are finding it hard enough to increase production due to direct and indirect taxation which is helping to cripple them. If we are to produce more and export more, we shall have to reduce taxation on our farmers and give them the raw material as cheaply as possible so that they can compete on the British and any other market. It would be a daft policy to adopt what is mentioned in that report, that is, "that it would be justified, though not necessary, on nutritive grounds to make this compulsory". We should not stand for that for one moment.

The Minister is making £200,000 available by way of share capital by taking up that amount of shares in the company. They will not be called upon to pay a dividend or interest. Therefore, they will have a continuing subsidy of at least £10,000 to £12,000 per annum—that is, if you accept the normal bank rate. Therefore, if they produce 1,000 tons, they will have a subsidy of from £10 to £12 per ton. If they produce 2,000 tons, they will have a subsidy of from £5 to £6 per ton. Even with that, I doubt if they would be able to compete with private enterprise.

We should ask ourselves: Will this project give extra employment? We have been told by the Minister and Senator Ryan that it will, but, despite all the facts this Committee set out and all the information available to them, we have not been told how many people the project will provide with employment. We have not been given any rough estimate. I claim it will not mean any extra employment. You may employ extra people in North Mayo but you will put people already engaged in this business out of employment in Meath, Dublin, or some other county. That will not benefit the State.

The next question we must ask ourselves is: Will this project help to increase production? I doubt if any article that has to be subsidised by the State and that will result in indirect taxation on our farmers will help to increase production. Have we a market for the commodity? I believe we have not a market for it at present. The market is overdone. If we put another 2,000 or 3,000 tons on the market, we shall saturate it and it will be an utterly uneconomic proposition.

The Fianna Fáil Party have a majority in this House. If this goes to a vote to-night, they will not run out. They will wait and vote on it and put it through. I would agree entirely, if they intend to go ahead with it, with Senator Quinlan's suggestion to hand it over to the Sugar Company and definitely show it is not being set up to give jobs to some of the Fianna Fáil boys in County Mayo. That is all it is being set up for: we know that from past experience. If the Minister intends to go ahead with this project, the Sugar Company have people with experience and the technical "know-how". If anybody can make a success of it, they will.

Mr. Ruane

I welcome this Bill especially as I come from the area where this project is about to start. It is a pity that some years ago the change of Government brought about a change for some reason or another in this area. The first action of the inter-Party Government in 1947-48 was to stop the generating station there. It was closed down for three or four years until there was a change of Government again in 1951. When that Government of 1951 were elected, they started the machines in the Bangor Erris area and the next move by the Fianna Fáil Government was this grass meal project. I was in Erris about two weeks ago and I am very sorry that some of the Senators here and members of the Dáil were not invited instead of the 40 or 50 officials who were there. I am sure every Senator and member of the Dáil would benefit by the experience of seeing what has been happening there for some years past. They would see a field of oats on the bog, a field of potatoes, a field of wheat, of barley, mangels, turnips and onions. I was proud that I lived to see the day when that was possible in Erris.

Reading the reports of the debates in the lower House, I was disappointed to note that so much venom was displayed against this scheme. If we are to make any progress, it is not by poisonous or venomous speeches we shall make it. As one who knows a great deal about the cereals on exhibition, I can say it would be much cheaper to proceed with that scheme, even if we cannot sell the grass meal at an economic price and even if the Government had to help in regard to it, than to take 150 migrants into the Midlands. It would cost between £3,500 and £4,000 to take a migrant from Erris up to the Midlands. That is in the report which any Senator can read. I appeal to the members of the Seanad to pass this Bill without a division.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

I shall confine myself as far as possible to answering specific points that were made and if I can, or if necessary, defend the finding of the 1957 Committee as opposed to the inter-Departmental Committee. In the first instance, there are, as Senator Quinlan says, five or six other companies but this Committee clearly state in paragraph 70 (a) (ii), under "Conclusions":

Taking account of the potential home and export trade, a market over and above that catered for or likely to be catered for by existing grass meal producers should be capable of development to provide an outlet for the output of a plant at Glenamoy.

The members of the Committee that made this report are, I am sure, very well known to most members of the House. Their capacity for examining such a proposal, I would say, is beyond question. I for one would be very glad to rely on the recommendations given by such a body of men.

I should like to say, in reference to Senator Quinlan's suggestion that I am blaming civil servants in order to justify a change of mind, that I have never had a change of mind about this project. I introduced it initially in 1952 and I criticised the previous Government for abandoning it and the Report of this Committee justifies my criticism of that Government. I did say in the Dáil that the approach of Deputy Dillon and Deputy Sweetman to the original Bill was so venomous and so hostile that it was difficult for the committee of civil servants who were set up to examine this Bill, not from the social aspect but from the purely financial and economic aspect, to come to any other conclusion than the one to which they did come.

I might say to Senator Quinlan in respect of his suggestion that we are casting aspersions on the judgement of the officials of the Department of Agriculture, that in the course of their evidence before this later committee, the Department of Agriculture witnesses said on a number of occasions that the evidence they had given before the inter-Departmental Committee in 1954 was not now, in the light of events accurate, and I shall refer the Senator to at least two of these instances. The Department of Agriculture witness said to the 1957 committee—by describing it thus, I shall distinguish it from the inter-Departmental Committee—that the period between the opening of the drains and the commencement of cultivation now proved to be shorter than had been suggested by them to the inter-Departmental Committee. That was one instance in which the Department of Agriculture changed their evidence in the light of experience. Another instance was: The Department of Agriculture witnesses advised the inter-Departmental Committee that re-seeding was necessary every second year and that only two tons per acre of grass was possible. The Department of Agriculture official, according to this report, doubted the advice that was then given and was satisfied that 2½ tons per acre "would not be unrealistic". Those are the words used. As a matter of fact, as the Senator knows, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, for whom he obviously has some regard, are emphatic about the fact that 2½ tons per acre was not unrealistic. Therefore in two material instances the evidence available and given to the inter-Departmental Committee was contradicted by the same witnesses before this 1957 Committee.

The Senator referred in particular to the cost of the drainage. Min Fhéir, Teoranta, in 1953 drained a large portion of that bog and they had practical experience of the costing and the working of such drainage. Therefore, we are able to rely not on the evidence of experts but on the evidence of their own working as to what the cost of drainage was. What better evidence could there be for any examination, no matter what the purpose of it was than the actual cost of operating?

Professor Quinlan

Did that include interest on capital?

Mr. J. Lynch

The interest in so far as it referred to that part of the operation. I do not wish to refer any further to the difference between the 1957 Committee and the inter-Departmental Committee. I did say during the course of the passage of the Bill in the Dáil that I did not know the identity of any member of the inter-Departmental Committee. Since then, in fact only to-day, I met a senior civil servant, not from the Department of Industry and Commerce, who volunteered that he was a member of the inter-Departmental Committee.

In regard to the evidence of Mr. Scanlon, the Company Chairman, as to the availability of an export market, it does appear from this Report, and it did appear in the Dáil debates subsequently, that there was a direct conflict of evidence. I am satisfied from what was said to me to-day that the two parties were not quite ad idem as to what they were discussing at the time. In the event, the fact was that what the Chairman of the old Committee said to the inter-Departmental Committee about an export market was to some extent misinterpreted accidentally and that misinterpretation found its way into the report. I do not want to refer any further to the conflict between the two Committees.

With regard to the availability of a market, I am prepared to accept the report of this Committee which, as I have said, is composed of eminent men both in the fields of engineering, agriculture and accountancy, but I am also prepared to accept more concrete evidence that came into my possession since the Dáil debate. I received a letter from a man who is associated with one of the existing companies producing grass meal in this country. He assured me that there was an ample market in Northern Ireland and even in Britain for good quality grass meal. To bear that out, he enclosed letters from a North of Ireland oatmeal and provender miller asking for deliveries of a quantity of grass meal. That was only a small quantity. It does not add much to the force of what I am saying now.

He also produced a letter from a firm operating on the Corn Exchange in Liverpool asking his company to supply 100 tons of grass meal a week for each week from the end of July, or as early as it is possible to provide grass meal, until the end of December. That would be well over 2,000 tons to one firm alone in Britain. In other words, it would absorb the economic output of Glenamoy alone. So, there is concrete evidence to refute the suggestion that Deputies made in the Dáil that in seven years' time, nobody would be buying grass meal. The fact is that, according to the evidence I have from the inter-Departmental Committee and according to the factual information of a person in the trade, the market for grass meal in Ireland, the Six Counties and Britain is increasing as long as a good quality and reasonable prices prevail.

Senators very rightly suggested that the establishment of this company should not prejudice the operations of individual companies. As far as quantity is concerned, I think the report of the 1957 Committee will allay any fears they might have. As far as price is concerned, it is reasonable to assume that to produce grass meal in a bog area will create an impediment against undercutting. That is very real. I would not think for a moment that such production, having regard to the original cost of development and drainage, could in any way injure the existing company as far as pricing is concerned. In any case, the Irish Crop Dryers Association represented before the inter-Departmental Committee, did not as far as I could gather, make any such case. I met them myself on a couple of occasions before the original Bill was passed and not only did they not say that they had any apprehension about it but they offered the utmost co-operation. The 1957 Committee in their report suggest that the new Board of Min-Fhéir Teoranta will give the same degree of co-operation to the Irish Crop Dryers Association and I am sure they will.

Senator O'Quigley asked also about the number employed or to be employed. When the original company was wound up, there were then 31 people employed. That was only the development work and it was taken over then by the Department of Agriculture and the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands. They employed, as of June, 1959, 60 people but they had expended in the short time they were there a total of £187,000 on research alone. That was almost the entire amount that was to be provided initially for the setting up of this grass meal plant. That was expended in a period of about three years employing only 60 people. I understand that that expenditure was more than double the expenditure that had been anticipated. I am not trying to take away from it but so far as the suggestion that the operations going on there are of much greater value is concerned, I do not think anybody can assess that. It is a research station—an experimental station but at all events it is costing much more than the inter-Party Government who set it up had expected it would cost.

Professor Quinlan

That is a measure of its success.

Mr. J. Lynch

Not necessarily, I suggest. I would not accept for a moment that the success of research can be measured by the amount of money spent. On the contrary, it often indicates failure in that particular exercise.

Professor Quinlan

Not in agricultural research.

Mr. J. Lynch

Senator Cole, I think, struck the nail on the head when he said that the long-term consideration of this measure is one that we cannot ignore. It is one, unfortunately, which the inter-Departmental Committee did not consider. It seems that they had no option but to ignore it under their terms of reference. If we consider the cost of putting one man into a farm acquired by the Land Commission, we are led to believe that it varies from between £3,000 and £3,500. If we can get in this manner in a short period 2,000 acres of land capable of being cultivated, it will give roughly 50 farmers 40 acres each in the long run. To divide such an acreage would cost the Land Commission about £150,000.

So, if we relate the original capital outlay to the value of the land that will be brought into cultivation and the social value of putting families to live there and work on the lands, I think we cannot over-estimate the value of what is envisaged in this Bill. As a matter of fact, while sitting here today, I was reminded of the contribution made by the late Senator Baxter when the Bill was originally before this House. As reported in Volume 41, Column 704 of the official debates he said:

This is a small and simple looking measure. I welcome it and venture to prophesy that, simple as it appears, it may after some time be written down as one of the most important proposals that has come before the Oireachtas since this State was established.

I am not attempting to claim that for the Bill but I would certainly commend the outlook Senator Baxter had at that time and would commend the hopes he had for the ultimate objectives of this Bill which are not only to provide employment for a certain number of people immediately but to bring back bogland hitherto useless but which ultimately can be cultivated.

Incidentally, before I sit down, I should say that the numbers expected to be employed on the operation itself are about 150 to 170 for seven months of the year and about half that number for five months of the year in the valley period.

Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.

Bill considered in Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

On this section, which is the section to establish the company provided for by the Act of 1953, I want to make this remark arising from what the Minister said. It appears that officials of the Department of Agriculture gave certain evidence to the inter-Departmental Committee established by the inter-Party Government, which was wrong, according to the Minister, on two material facts. I do not know if the Minister has revealed this already or whether it is in the report——

Mr. J. Lynch

It is in the Report.

Mr. O'Quigley

If that is the fact, I merely want to say that it must necessarily follow that the recommendations of the inter-Departmental Committee must have been wrong and if the Government were prepared to accept, as they did, the recommendations of the inter-Departmental Committee, which it made from wrong evidence of a material character, it seems to me that all this talk about spleen and venom on the part of the Government is quite misdirected because they acted on wrong recommendations framed on the basis of wrong evidence.

Mr. J. Lynch

That is possibly an over-statement.

Professor Quinlan

Would the Minister indicate whether he would consider a suggestion I made that a limited company might be formed in association with Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and possibly utilise their know-how and perhaps their board?

Mr. J. Lynch

When the original company was set up it was set up largely with the assistance of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. They did not offer themselves to take over the operation at Glenamoy since they were so occupied with the operations at Gowla. Nevertheless, they gave one of their experts as a full-time manager at Glenamoy and unfortunately he had to go back again to Comhlucht Siúicre. It is not envisaged that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann will, nor do I think they would want to, undertake this operation themselves.

Professor Quinlan

Seeing that the Gowla operation is now seven years past and that the difficulties that arose before do not arise now, if Comhlucht Siúicre offered to play a more active part than at present would that be considered?

Mr. J. Lynch

The Senator may be sure that the new company will cooperate to the fullest extent with Comhlucht Siúicre Eireann as they did in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Quinlan

The Minister indicated that 2,000 acres of land would become available for settlement after the operations of this company. I do not see in the Bill anywhere a suggestion that the company, when it has reclaimed the land, will eventually move on and make this available for land settlement. I think it would be a great idea if that could be done, but has the Minister got the power? Having set up a limited company I do not think he would have it.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is going back on Section 2.

Mr. J. Lynch

There is no doubt about it anyhow.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. O'Donovan

So far as I know we have had no justification at all for the proposals as to what the capital of this company should be. The Minister in his concluding statement on the Second Reading suggested that he had had no representations from private enterprise companies which would suggest that they were concerned that this company would interfere with them. I happen to be aware that they are very concerned; they have been concerned not only recently but for many years with this proposal. The Minister's views on it are well known and if the Minister says the civil servants were obsessed by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Sweetman, then I can say the private companies were obsessed by the Minister.

The Minister is a man who speaks very quietly but I heard him speak with a fair amount of force in Dáil Éireann on this matter. Everybody is entitled to be concerned about something which is close to his heart. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce comes in here and says the civil servants on the inter-Departmental committee were concerned about the attitude of the two Ministers— that is to say Deputy Dillon and Deputy Sweetman—the private enterprise companies were well aware, and could not be unaware, of the position about which they kept themselves informed. The opinion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce is well known by anybody who paid attention to his speech. This kind of argument, and the production of a letter from Liverpool, a recent one I suppose——

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Dr. O'Donovan

——is not worth recording. In a year like this, a year of drought, why should there not be a demand for grass meal? There has been a drought in these islands and naturally there would be a demand for it. These kinds of arguments are not worth recording on paper so far as a long-term project of this sort is concerned.

Mr. J. Lynch

Has no hay been grown or saved?

Dr. O'Donovan

I understand the position about saving hay. You save it easily when the sun shines but you do not save grass meal because it requires continuous rain. I know that much about grass. The Minister's attitude on this matter is on a par with the statement of Senator Ruane that the last Government had some kind of animus, some set on a particular area.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator must relate his remarks to the section.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am concerned about these small companies. They have only small resources. Are they to be put in the position of competing with a company which is being provided with £200,000 by the State in addition to considerable research work done already on the project? As I said, there was no statement that I heard from the Minister, or anywhere else for that matter, justifying this and I read both the report of the inter-Departmental committee and of the committee set up since 1957. Mind you, I read them with an open mind because I was not concerned in any way except from the point of view of representations made to me by people concerned with these private companies. I formed the opinion that the report of the inter-Departmental committee was a much better document than the other report. A far better one.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What relation has this to the section?

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is going outside the scope of the section.

Dr. O'Donovan

There are certain calculations in the report as to what capital will be required by the company. This is the matter I am referring to, Sir. What is the justification for this capital of £200,000 to produce grass meal on an area, apparently, of 2,000 or 2,500 acres of bog?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We have been talking about it for two and a half hours.

Mr. J. Lynch

I might answer that question very simply. I stated in my opening statement that the Committee had examined it and had made a recommendation for the provision of the capital to the extent I gave, that is, £165,000 non-repayable grant and £35,000 of working capital. I would refer to paragraph 63, page 38, of the Report. It is broken up into details there, such as Senator O'Donovan's economic mind would require. Certainly it is given there in more detail than I could give.

Dr. O'Donovan

Senators have been very careful to make no reflection on anyone in this debate. When I read that Report, I formed a certain opinion about the members of that particular Committee.

Professor Quinlan

I should like to move an amendment to subsection (2), to insert the following subsection:

"No person who has been a candidate for election to either House of the Oireachtas shall be eligible for appointment as a director of the company until seven years have elapsed from the date of such candidature."

This is a general clause with I should like to see inserted in the case of all State Boards. I think that we have to make a start some time and I am proposing the amendment now, on this stage.

Due to taking the Committee Stage immediately after the Second Reading, we did not have the usual facility or time for the submission of amendments.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator got it on all the other Bills and never put in amendments. In fact, we adjourned the Committee Stage a couple of times to enable Senator Quinlan to put in amendments; but the weighty amendments never arrived from outer space.

Professor Quinlan

I challenge Senator Ó Maoláin to substantiate his statement. Anything I ever said I would do in this House I did.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Go back on the records and you will see for yourself.

Mr. J. Lynch

If the amendment is in order, I propose to resist it. The suggestion from the Opposition in the Dáil—and here the last day—was that we were going too far. Now Senator Quinlan wants to go much further, to disqualify any person from being a candidate for seven years after he has been a member of the Dáil or Seanad.

Professor Quinlan

We are all in agreement with the necessity for State boards, but while we are very careful to exclude people who are members of the Oireachtas, we have this opinion created that these posts are very often used as consolation prizes. I know the Minister has resisted that. I would expect that he would not do such a thing. However, I think it is a type of general saving clause that we should put in, as a matter of course, in the creation of all our boards.

Mr. Lenihan

I am sorry to see Senator Quinlan subscribing to the notion that there is something inferior about members of the Oireachtas.

Professor Quinlan

No, I did not.

Mr. Lenihan

I think members of the Seanad, or of Dáil Éireann, are pretty well, on the whole, the cream of the community—with certain reservations. By and large, I think they are men of high intellectual calibre, men of capability and quality.

If for some reason or other they cease to be members of either House of the Oireachtas, such members, having ceased to hold public office, should in many cases be very well fitted to hold positions such as arise under this Bill.

Professor Quinlan

That argument could equally well be applied to sitting members, because by excluding sitting members from boards, you are depriving those boards, of the people the electors thought best on the list of candidates. I am just suggesting that defeated candidates should be given similar treatment. I am not committed to five or seven, or any number of years. Three or five years would do. I think it would be a healthy sign and would allay much of the criticism throughout the country of State boards, where the posts are regarded as being largely consolation prizes.

Mr. Lenihan

The Senator is helping towards that view, which is completely erroneous.

Professor Quinlan

It certainly is not. I do not wish to bring in personalities, but I could quote cases of at least two appointees in 1958 to such boards.

An Cathaoirleach

May I indicate that the Chair is not accepting this amendment? The Senator may, if he wishes, oppose the section. No amendment is being taken at this stage.

Professor Quinlan

Does that mean that, having agreed to take the Committee Stage immediately after the Second Reading, we thereby penalise ourselves, as far as inserting amendments goes?

Mr. Lenihan

It is a stupid amendment, and the Senator knows it well.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator appreciates that the Chair cannot accept the amendment without notice.

Professor Quinlan

Then, with due respect, what notice can we give when the Committee Stage follows immediately on the Second Reading?

An Cathaoirleach

There is a further Stage.

Professor Quinlan

Can we do it on the Report Stage?

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Professor Quinlan

In deference to the Minister, who probably is anxious to finish this Bill, I shall not press an amendment that I could move on this Stage. It is no reflection on the Minister or on this board. It is a general principle which I hope to advocate in regard to each and every board that is set up. I hope we shall succeed in having this principle inserted, for the protection of the House and for the good name of the Oireachtas.

Question put and agreed to.

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