Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jul 1969

Vol. 66 No. 16

Grass Meal (Production) (Amendment) Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

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

The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the share capital of Min Fhéir (1959) Teo. from £200,000 to £350,000 to enable the company to carry out its functions including, in particular, the manufacture of grass meal.

The Grass Meal (Production) (Amendment) Act, 1959, fixed the share capital of the company at £200,000 all of which has been issued. The figure £200,000 was based on a recommendation of the Committee on the Glenamory Grass Meal Project. The committee estimated that the project would involve capital expenditure of £164,113 and recommended that £195,000 should be made available to the company, of which £165,000 would be for development purposes and £30,000 for working capital. In the event, the actual expenditure on development work amounted to £191,000, that is, an excess expenditure of £27,000 approximately. The excess expenditure was due to increased costs between 1957-58 when the estimates were prepared and 1962-63 when the works were carried out and to some unforeseen expenditure, for example, on staff housing, culverts, outfalls and fire-fighting equipment. The increase of £27,000 on development works reduced the company's working capital to £9,000.

The company commenced production in 1964 and output of grass meal rose from 914 tons in the first year of operation to 1,800 tons in 1968-69. The level which the committee considered necessary for economic operation, however, was 2,000 to 2,500 tons a year. The reduced output was due to insufficiency of funds to meet the costs of full grassland development and the provision of adequate drying and storage facilities coupled with difficult marketing conditions in recent years.

The company have tentative plans for expansion. These include the extension of the existing drying and storage facilities and the development for productive purposes of a further area of land held by it. It requires an immediate injection of £50,000, however, to restore its working capital position. It is proposed to continue production at an annual rate of 1,500 to 1,600 tons for the present but the company is engaged in a survey of the production and marketing situation with a view to a decision, as early as possible, to increase production to the economic level of 2,500 tons per annum. This survey will explore the feasibility of diversification from grass meal alone, for example, to grass cubes or grass biscuits suitable for inclusion in coarse dairy rations.

The secondary purpose of the Bill is to enable the company to make short term borrowing. Under existing legislation the company may, under certain conditions, borrow money by means of debentures. The pattern of the industry is that stocks of grass meal build up during the production season (May to September) each year. Sales are negligible until the autumn and reach their peak in the spring. The company must have sufficient working capital to finance stocks at the highest point. The normal commercial method of financing is by temporary bank borrowing.

An injection of additional capital is vital to the survival of Min Fhéir Teoranta, which, in turn, is of paramount importance to the social and economic well-being of the Glenamoy area of County Mayo. The direct staff employed by the company average 26 per year. In addition, local small-holders find seasonal employment in the cultivation, cutting and transporting of grass to the drying plant. Wages paid in the locality in recent years exceeded £13,000 per annum.

The company are co-operating with private producers in tackling the problems of the grass meal industry, particularly in the marketing field. I am, however, fully conscious of the urgent necessity for the company to improve their performance and I intend to meet the board of directors of the company at an early date for the purpose of seeing how best this can be done.

Senators will be aware of the difficulty of attracting new industry to remote parts of the west. It is imperative, therefore, to foster and develop the industry already there. I, accordingly, recommend the Bill to the House.

The Minister in this Bill has put forward to us by way of explanation that this particular enterprise is one which is worthy of a further injection of capital. In doing so he has not been able to give us anything like the detail which would be given to a private individual who was being asked to lend some of his money to such an enterprise.

The situation we face in regard to this Bill exemplifies rather clearly the inadequacy of our present Parliamentary methods in regard to matters such as the grass meal enterprise which we are now discussing. From time to time we hear talk about the reform of our Parliamentary institutions. The fact, apparently very widely agreed upon, is that there is room within our institutions for a committee system. Only in the last few days it was said in answer to a Dáil question that this matter was being kept under observation. It is just as well that the question of bringing a committee system into the Oireachtas is kept in mind because it is in grave danger of dying of starvation: it is being continually talked about, but nothing is being done about it. Matters such as the proposed investment which we have before us are things which could be dealt with far more efficiently and with far more satisfaction to all by some committee method. The Minister in putting forward these proposals to us, said:

An injection of additional capital is vital to the survival of Min Fhéir Teoranta, which, in turn, is of paramount importance to the social and economic well-being of the Glenamoy area of County Mayo.

Under the course we follow at the moment we have to take this on trust. It may be that an injection of additional capital is vital to its survival, but surely we should know more about this particular enterprise: surely we need to know something more before further capital is committed to it.

We heard nothing from the Minister when he introduced this Bill about the attempts which have been made of perhaps have not been made in regard to the efficiency of this particular operation. The Minister asked us in his speech recommending this Bill that we should grant the money and he will then talk to the directors of this company about the improving of their performance. One would hope that before asking for additional moneys in order to keep this company going that the Minister would already have been assured by the directors that definite steps had been taken in order to improve the performance of this undertaking.

Questions were raised in Dáil Éireann about the particular quality of the produce of Min Fhéir Teoranta and specific questions were asked in regard to the protein content. In regard to the question of market arrangements, on how many harvests a year are taken in this particular grass meal enterprise. These questions, as far as I know, remain unanswered in the Dáil and remain unanswered here. In a case such as this, we should have had far more information. The House is left in a very invidious position in regard to this. I, like many Members in this House, am committed to public enterprise, rather in a pragmatic fashion, being without an ideological commitment to State enterprise or semi-State enterprise.

There is always an onus on the Minister when he comes to us asking for support to prove that this is a case in which State enterprise, public enterprise, is necessary because of the failure of private enterprise. It might well be that, under probing, it would be revealed that the whole grass meal industry of this country, both the sector represented by Min Fhéir Teoranta and that represented by the small number of producers, are all operating on a relatively small scale. These are things which should be known before this money is voted.

We have no information from the Minister as to the degree of contact between the grass meal enterprise in Glenamoy and the research station of An Foras Tionscal. Are they constantly in touch with one another? Is this particular enterprise able to call on the specialist services directly and in a special way of the people in the peatland experimental station at Glenamoy who know so much about the particular problems of the peatland areas? There is a great dearth of information in what the Minister has given us and this is an instance in which if this House and the whole Oireachtas had a committee system, a Bill of this kind could go to a committee where there could be a thorough discussion of all the various points that are omitted by custom from a brief such as that which the Minister has read today in recommending the Bill.

The Minister has indicated that this particular enterprise is of paramount importance in this particular area of North Mayo but we do no good to North Mayo or, for that matter, to any other part of the west of Ireland by continuing the enterprise under the guise of economic enterprise which may not be economic. We shall have to distinguish clearly not only to the west but to the whole country what is economic enterprise and what is social support.

We are too ready to throw in the social argument in an enterprise such as this and to say it may not be fully justified on economic grounds. There is a case in regard to this particular enterprise, and it is one of many, that is that these things should be thoroughly probed. It may well be that the information I am talking about is available; it may well be that information is available in regard to the question of the economics of the enterprise; it may well be that information is available as to the social effects of this enterprise and that detailed reports are available. If they are available, they should be available to the Members of this House who are being asked to approve this money. If they are not available, they should be made available before the Minister comes to the House.

Enterprises of this nature are desirable and I am not questioning the desirability of this particular enterprise, but are we too ready to act and to grant the money to start the project when the information we have received is insufficient? As I have said, if we had in our institutions a system whereby capital advances went before a committee of the Oireachtas, there would be sufficient probing at such a committee to ensure that it would be pointless for any Minister to come before such a committee without having these facts available. All we have here is a plea from the Minister in which he says that he is prepared to trust this enterprise a little longer.

I appeal to the Minister and through him, I appeal to his colleagues to consider seriously the question as to whether the manner in which he has approached the Oireachtas with regard to this particular project is the one which is most appropriate to the efficient running of Oireachtas Éireann; whether it is the most appropriate way to make the right decision about enterprises of this sort and whether it is the most appropriate for ensuring that in regard to the particular, the peculiar problems of the west of Ireland, that when we invest money in the west, which is so badly needed, we invest it to the absolute maximum advantage.

This is my reaction to this Bill because we are being asked here on the basis of the Minister's trust in the directors of this company to go along with the Minister in this particular instance. We are prepared to go along, but reluctantly. If the Minister is prepared to express his confidence in this particular enterprise in the way he has indicated, I suggest that he should also be prepared to express his confidence in the Members of this House in so far as he should accept that we can be trusted with the facts of the situation and that we can be trusted to reach a proper conclusion if we are given the facts. In this instance we have not been given the facts. This is a pity and a disservice to Parliament.

The manner in which this Bill has been presented to the House today is indicative of the atmosphere in the House this afternoon—the atmosphere of a dying House. However, I wish to support the previous speaker on the points he made. Like him, I do not think the Government are being fair to the House, as they are not being fair to the people of Glenamoy and the west in general, in their approach to the Bill. I do not suppose that anybody, least of all anybody from these benches, would wish either to curtail or to reduce the necessary amount of support that must be given to the west: not only is capital of this order required but capital of a much greater magnitude is required.

Having said that, I believe that we have other responsibilities both to the people of the particular areas concerned and to the people in the rest of the country. We are being asked in this Bill for an increase in the share capital from £200,000 to £350,000. We are told very briefly that if this money is not provided, the future of the grass meal project in the west would be doomed to complete extinction. I do not wish to see a Bill being brought in in this particular manner. If we are to confine ourselves to the Minister's brief on this particular project, we must ask ourselves some serious questions. We are told for example, this is one aspect of it: we are told that the staff employed by this company averages 26 people per year. In the same paragraph we are also told that the wages paid in the locality in recent years exceed £13,000 per annum. Am I to take it that the £13,000 represents what was paid to the average number of 26 people employed? I can hardly accept that. If it is true, it seems to me that 26 people are there sharing £13,000 between them each year. It can hardly be called a living.

You do not have to be a mathematician to know how much each person gets on average. To my mind, that sort of proposition is not good enough. Neither House of the Oireachtas should be asked to pass a Bill in those terms. We seem to be meeting in an atmosphere of unreality, perhaps because of the particular time in which we live. In the past few days the thoughts of most people in the country have been on the moon. It seems to me that asking us to pass a Bill in these terms is asking people to accompany us on some sort of imaginary voyage of that nature. I feel, therefore, that, like Joxer, we are entitled to ask what is happening in this country. What is, in fact, the justification for the expenditure of something of this order on a project of this kind?

It is clear to my mind that if no better case can be presented for the passing of this measure through this House than the brief of the Minister this afternoon there is something wrong. Every Member of this House has a duty and a responsibility to ask what is wrong. I can see no benefit whatever to the people of Glenamoy in this measure. If they are getting no better return in terms of work than 26 people employed, getting between them £13,000 a year, the benefit is indeed very small. Obviously, this is a case for examination by a representative committee of either this House or the other House, or of both Houses combined. Measures of this order should not be presented in the manner in which this is presented to-day. It is just not good enough. It is an insult to Members of this House to ask them to pass a measure in these terms. I do not propose to support it for that reason.

We passed the Grass Meal Project Bill ten years ago. At that time we had before us the results of a committee which held out high hopes for the success of the project. I am not worried about the increase in capital, which is the sort of thing which is natural, and the depreciation since the money was voted in 1959 would take account of that I am worried about the failure to reach the very modest target of approximately 2,500 tons of grass meal per annum. I would much have preferred had this project come back looking for greater sums than are asked for here, with a much higher target If it is only a very small local industry of a type that should be capable of expansion, my question is why is it not expanding. Why are our sights not being set higher for the next five years? At present agriculture is pressing ahead and gaining a bit. The scientific side of it particularly is making great strides. There is an obvious need for protein and grass meal is a good source of that and one which we have at home in our own country. Why is it not being expanded further?

I ask this next question in ignorance. Has there been co-operation between the Agricultural Institute, the research side of agriculture, and the grass meal factory? Has the co-operation been sufficient? Have the problems associated with making grass meal palatable as a stock food been solved in that period. There seems to be something missing in public relations because the sale of grass meal is not progressing very well. There seems to be a case for all parties interested in this project to come together. I have no objection to voting the small increase asked for by the Minister at this juncture so that the small industry shall be kept going. We have no other objection at this stage.

I should like to see the Minister setting up a committee to examine the progress of the industry. If we cannot very substantially increase the target over the next five year period, I cannot see much hope for the industry as such. I hope for a target increase of tenfold. It is only by committee action and by careful study that we can arrive at that target. The present measure is, perhaps, a panic measure. There is urgent need for extra capital. The situation has to be dealt with and is too urgent to await inquiry. This amount will only keep the industry alive. We want it to expand. Now when we are at the beginning of a new period of Government and at the beginning of the Third Programme, I should like to see the Minister taking the initiative in getting many subjects like this back to committees. I should like to see the Minister using the new Seanad in that capacity. The Minister would get great co-operation from all concerned. It is impossible to make a snap judgment on the figures as they have been presented to us and as they are seemingly available to the Minister at this juncture. They do not answer our question as to when we can make an industry contribute in a worthwhile manner to the development of that region.

We want to know about the board of Min Fhéir Teoranta. Are they sufficiently representative and do they command the confidence of the interests involved? Are the organised farmers and the research-minded agriculturalists represented on this board? I do not know myself. I have not the personnel of the board before me. I presume the board will be due for renewal shortly. I should like the Minister to take this opportunity to see that we get a more aggressive board. The record is anything but a success story.

With these few comments, I am quite agreeable to support the measure, as it is purely an interim step, in the hope that the Minister will be back for a greatly increased sum as a result of a re-examination, and that our target figure will be increased at least tenfold if this industry is one which will make a contribution to our economic progress in the 1970's.

Also, indeed, I could not see such an industry surviving in the free trade competition which we must face in the next decade. It could hardly survive based on the small standard of production it has got. It would need to link perhaps even out of that part of North Mayo where it may not be possible to get an adequate supply of grass for conversion, and it may need to link into many other areas. If we are to have a grass meal project it should now be moving into the national level and should have figures commensurate with that.

As one who was associated with this project in its very early stages and up to the time that I was a candidate for the Seanad, I should like to give a reasonable, fair and honest picture to the House. I want you to consider an area in North Mayo where nine-tenths of all that you can see, standing at the highest point of the highest hill in the area, is blanket bog, where there is not an industry of any type or shape, where the people are depending on the dole and the money they can earn by migration and emigration. You are asked here today more or less to compare that area with an area where grass can be produced naturally without any development whatsoever, where the land on which it is produced is eminently suitable for tillage, market gardening, beef production or vegetable production.

Now let me say that in the beginning when the original Min Fhéir Teoranta were set up, the board sought and got every single bit of help and co-operation from all those people in this country and outside it who were engaged on the effort of reclamation of blanket bog area or fen country. We had a pilot scheme in operation at Gowla under General Costello and we had the big development carried on during the last war in the fen country in England where efforts were made to reclaim part of the fen country for the purpose of producing grass meal and protein. Both of these schemes were examined. The personnel in charge of these schemes gave the utmost help and co-operation.

We first acquired 2,000 acres of bog land at Glenamoy. Approximately 680 acres of that was grass land on the side of a hill and was reasonably dry and capable of being drained immediately, but 1,400 to 1,500 acres was low level, flat blanket bog which was entirely unsuitable for any use. It was not required for turf production, it was completely unsuitable for mountain grazing. Cattle could not walk on the place. Sheep could, with difficulty, but did not try because it was absolutely water-logged. We started into a scheme of development of 680 acres, and that was drained in fields 100 feet wide. We found that those drains at 100 feet centre to centre were not capable of draining all the bog in between, so eventually we had to divide our fields into 50 feet wide fields. Drainage had to be carried out in a three year period to be effective.

In the first year you could just break the bog grass and get down into the moving peat which was underneath. If you went too deep the whole thing caved in on you. After the second year you could go down a certain depth lower, and in the third year we succeeded in putting in drains about 3½ feet deep. Then that particular 680 acres was solid enough to bear some of those tracked machines for the purpose of rotovating and we did seed down some of that in the third year. I am not surprised now that there is a certain amount of opposition to the original or to this scheme and to the proposal before us, because when we had reached that stage and 680 acres was actually ready for cultivation and some had been seeded down, the board were closed down by the inter-Party Government.

During that time men were employed entirely during the summer period as long as it was possible to work, and as many men as were required were employed during the winter period in the maintenance of the drains. That was the first time in the history of the Barony of Erris where a number of men had a pay packet even for eight months of spring, summer and autumn during which they could be permanently employed. It was the first time in the history of Erris, and this scheme was closed down and subsequently, I may say, it was the first choice after a most intensive investigation of that area of the country. Then when that was closed down it was handed over to the Peatland Development Company, and the man who was put in charge of the Peatland Development Company was our second officer.

I may say that we advertised for a manager and an assistant manager. We held interviews and, let it be mentioned here to our credit, that the manager who was first selected for this particular scheme in Glenamoy was Mr. Con Murphy, who has since left for the Sugar Company and is now one of the outstanding men in connection with the development of youth employment in this country. Second to him was Mr. P.J. O'Hare who was left in charge of the Peatland Development Scheme and is still in charge. Both these men up to today have absolutely the keenest possible interest in the grass meal project as it is now being carried out at Geesalia.

So much for the beginning of the scheme. When we tried to go on to a new scheme in fact the second area was more water-logged and more difficult than the first in so far as we did not have 680 acres of reasonably high ground which was reasonably well-drained in advance. I can assure Members of the House that I tramped through those bogs on Sundays with my colleagues in wellingtons, and without wellingtons you would not be able to go 100 yards in any direction on that 2,500 acres which they acquired for the second scheme at Geesalia. Eventually drainage work had to be carried out as in the original scheme, and indeed we found the area was so difficult that we had to put in solid roads in order to try to bring out the grass to the mill when it was ready for cutting. That was an expenditure which was not foreseen and which greatly added to the cost in the initial stages.

I should like to give the House some figures, because it is left without a lot of information, and I can vouch for these figures for I have got them from the chairman of the board. In 1964 in Geesalia, 900 tons, 17 cwts of grass meal was produced at a cost of £27 15s. The weekly rate of wages for a labourer at that time was £8 10s. Drivers of tractavators were getting £9 1s 10½d; chargehands had £9 1s 10½d and a foreman had £10 15s. In 1965, 1,356 tons were produced; in 1966, a difficult year, the production was 1,071 tons; in 1967 the production was 1,503 tons; and in 1968 the total amount produced was 1,805 tons. The cost of producing 1,805 tons in 1968 was £27 11s 1d as compared with the first year figure of £27 15s. In the meantime the labourer's rate of wages had increased from £8 10s to £10 10s, the driver's rate of wages had increased to £12 9s 2d, the chargehand's rate of wages had increased to £12 2s 6d and the foreman's rate of pay had increased to £13 12s 6d. The price of sacks went up from £34 2s 10d per thousand to £40 10s 4d; phosphate and potash increased in price from £10 15s to £18 1s 8d; nitrogen increased in price from £16 17s 6d to £23 10s.

Therefore, when Senators take into account the extra cost of wages, of fuel, of sacks, of manuring, quite a reasonable job of work was done and reasonable returns were shown, because between 1964 and 1968 the amount produced went up from 900 tons to 1,800 tons and the cost dropped from £27 15s 5d to £26 11s 1d. During the summer period there are only 31 people employed. During the winter, because of lack of capital, of money of any kind for expansion or further development, the number employed, on maintenance alone, is 12.

Some comparison has been made, or some fault has been found with the protein content, with the quality of the grass meal produced in Geesalia and Glenamoy. As in any other area, it varies according to the amount of manuring, particularly in proportion to the amount of nitrogen used in the manuring. The Grass Meal Board have produced grass meal with a protein content as high as 21 per cent, and 21 per cent to 16 per cent is regarded as high. Fourteen per cent to 16 per cent is standard and below 14 per cent is sub-standard. We are asked to compare the protein content of grass meal produced in Glenamoy and we are apt to forget that we are operating entirely on a bleak, exposed area on the sea coast subject to all the storms and excess rainfall coming in from the Atlantic, on ground on which it was not found possible to get even a sheep to walk; we are asked to compare that with production from land in County Louth which is entirely suitable for any form of agricultural produce— beef, milk, market gardening. I wish Senators would keep those two things in mind and that they would keep them apart—that they would give this scheme at least a fair crack of the whip: that they would take into account something which they decry here, the social aspect of the scheme.

Particularly they should keep in mind the fact that men can look out for the first time in their lives, for the first time in the history of the area, on 2,000 acres of green, not on blanket bog, not on barren mountains, not on an area completely denuded of any form of growth except heather. If this scheme failed now, at least the developed grass land will remain. I hope Senators will bear that in mind.

The only interest I have in this scheme is the interest any person would have who was associated with it from the beginning—the interest of a person who has seen the outlook of these people changed, who has worked among them. Let this thing be criticised as much as you like, but let it be fair, just, honest and above board criticism. Let Senators kindly bear in mind the circumstances in which the Grass Meal Board are trying to operate the scheme and do not compare it with another area where anything in the world can be grown at the cheapest possible cost.

It has been said we have not given any information as to the number of crops produced in a year. That has varied considerably because at one stage we were producing crops of grass which was growing to such an extent that we were not able to put it all through our mill because the capacity of our drying plant was not sufficient to enable us to use all the grass that came in in a good season, and the grass was allowed to ripen, it was cut and sold as meadow to local people. In different circumstances, in a bad year, the output and the number of crops varied. This is not a peculiarity of grass meal production. Bord na Móna found when they carried out their first experiments in milled peat production at Rathmogan in the vicinity of Bangor Erris that they got six crops of milled peat in the first year. I doubt if they are averaging three crops now in good years. That happens in relation to any other crop in any other area.

There has been the greatest possible co-operation between the development people and the people at Gowla. General Costello gave every possible help and co-operation at the beginning. He gave men for the commencement of the scheme, he gave prototype machines, he gave every possible help and I wish to pay him a tribute for having done that. On every side, people who came to see the scheme in Glenamoy were anxious and willing to give every help and co-operation. Indeed, I must say as far as the officers appointed by the Grass Meal Board are concerned, they did not work for wages: they worked as a challenge, they worked to improve the lot of the less well-off in the worst and most barren part of rural Ireland.

Senator Crowley does not think the Government are being fair to the House in the presentation of this proposal with regard to the increase of the share capital from £200,000 to £350,000. He then went on to criticise the number of men employed. As I stated at the beginning, it took at least three years, in good circumstances in the better areas of comparative drainage before any seeding could be done. In the worst areas it takes four years, so you can see the development depends entirely on having sufficient money available in order to look forward, not from year to year but for three to four years ahead. The wages are mentioned as being £13,000. The number employed, as I already stated, is 31 during the summer months and 12 during the winter months.

This gives an average of 26.

That is the number it takes. There is no capital available for further expansion. I am happy to see Senator Quinlan is not concerned about this application for increased capital but he is disappointed we have not reached an annual target figure of 2,500 tons at least. I explained the reason for that is that you are tied into a certain estate which was made available in 1959 and not increased since and you were tied to an area of ground which was purchased and badly developed as far back as 1959. We do not have any money for the purpose of further expansion, acquisition of land and drainage in order to expand. However, the market for grass meal is limited. There is absolutely no market at the present time. If we increase our output tenfold, as Senator Quinlan hopes, we would not have a market for it. We have to sell in competition with people who are producing under the most favourable circumstances.

The project is being hit by the fact that synthetic materials are being produced possibly at a lower price. Even against all those things I am not asking for any charity or any handout for the people in this particular area. They are working hard for what they get, they are working hard to make a living and they see some prospects before them. They see the prospect of employment for themselves and their children if this scheme is developed within the economic limit of a market being available. Those people can look out onto a green field. That, mind you, must be refreshing to people who have been reared in such a desolate, backward area. Above and beyond that they have pride in carrying home in their pockets money which they worked for and earned rather than money which was handed out to them in the Dole Office.

There is the difference. There is one particular aspect of this scheme which I would ask you to consider in addition to the economic aspect, which is important in any State scheme of development. I would ask you to consider the social aspect to those people which is very important and I would ask you, not to do anything which would prejudice further development or an improvement in the social aspects and the social outlook of those people in the near future.

I should like to congratulate Senator Flanagan for the very practical information which he has just given to the House.

I think the House is very much indebted to the Senator.

I have a slight experience of this as I visited the Foras Talúntais installation at Glenamoy and I was amazed at the time to see the possible development there. I would not like to go into detail because I would not be able to do justice to them. However, when I visited this installation I spoke to a man attached to An Foras Talúntais. I know that An Foras Talúntais have nothing to do with the work there only to help and assist by explanation and demonstration. What I saw there was explanatory and demonstrative of the possibility of growing grass where there was only heather before. By the system of artificial manuring I was amazed to see the production of grass on the land attached to the Foras Talúntais installation.

This is a small industry and the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government are interested in small industries. In this connection I should like to mention to the Seanad that there is great potential in this industry at Glenamoy. I asked the man who spoke to me if the rest of the citizens who live on the land nearby could benefit from this. He told me that the expense was the difficulty. The expense of providing the facilities for growing this grass is tremendous. If more money could be provided please God this would develop very much in the future.

I should like to mention also that I was glad to see that the Forestry Department were establishing forestry belts in this area. I should like to say, as a Member of the Seanad, that we should not be so critical of the Minister and the Government for not giving us those particulars because if the particulars given by Senator Flanagan here today were given to a committee some members of the committee might get fed up although some of them would be interested. However, it is good that we have got this information and I think the Seanad would be wise in passing this Bill now and being satisfied with the recommendations of a Government who are prepared to look after this small industry and to help the people in this barren area.

I should like to say, of course, that our difficulty with regard to the efficient running of Oireachtas Éireann has been mentioned repeatedly before, that is this thing of getting Bills at the end of a Parliamentary session of the Dáil and the Seanad then, having been here to discuss them, all we could do was to talk about them. We could not recommend any alteration to the Government because of the fact the Dáil would be adjourned and that it would cost so much money to assemble the Dáil again if the Seanad did anything more practical than talking. That is the only thing we can do. We can not do anything negative. The best thing we can do is to talk about this, pass a Bill and let this work continue. This is one of the difficulties between the Dáil and the Seanad. I appreciate we have had discussions on it before but it is very difficult to have collaborations between the two Houses of the Oireachtas.

First I should like to say that I support this proposal and the fact that the Minister needs extra capital for the reasons which he has mentioned. It is only right to say that this project was embarked on in rather difficult circumstances. It was a project which the experts said would not be justified by the results. We now have a situation where this project is being operated at a loss. There are many grass meal concerns operating at a profit because they were established on a proper basis in conditions which enabled them to make a profit.

But it was pointed out that from the very beginning this project was a pretty hopeless one. It was said to be as impossible as trying to grow grass on the moon to try to grow grass in an area such as the one which was chosen, in spite of all the drainage work, the technical skill and the agricultural science that was made available in an effort to make the project a success. I know it has been a success in so far as it has enabled students of the fluke to deal with that particular plague. They have been able to make comparisons and to carry out experiments in relation to this particular project so far as fluke is concerned. I am sure that was a valuable contribution to science, but on the question of producing grass meal, those who said before it was established that there was no prospect of its being a viable enterprise have been proved correct.

At the present time, this project is being operated at a loss of approximately £12 per ton, calculated on the output. There is also a very big capital investment involved. However, there is one point which I should like the Minister to deal with in his reply in regard to the sale of grass meal at a cheaper price than the grass meal being manufactured by viable concerns. Naturally enough, with the aid of State capital and a loss of £12 per ton, it is only reasonable to say that there appears to be unfair competition between this State-supported project and the enterprising grass meal manufacturers who are able to produce a high-class product and who are compelled in the commercial world to sell this grass meal at a price which will give them an operating profit and keep them in business because they have not the taxpayers' money and State finance to keep their businesses going, to keep their gear maintained and to replace all the other equipment that is necessary in connection with the production of grass meal.

I should also like to know from the Minister when he is replying whether when this increased capital is made available and is put to work for the purpose of improving the effort if there is any prospect even then that a better quality grass meal will be put on the market and whether there is any hope that it will be operated at a smaller loss than at present, or are we financing something which is going to keep operating at a loss?

There are approximately 25 to 30 people employed on this losing project and, of course, they and their families are getting a week's wages in return for their labour. They are entitled to that, but is there any prospect for these people to be employed in a business which they know is successful, profitable and achieving something rather than being supported at the expense of the community. One Senator did mention that it was better to have these men working at this project, earning a week's wages and coming home to their families after a satisfactory week's work with his wage packet instead of going to the Labour Exchange to collect their dole and then returning home. I agree with the Senator on that. I think it is most important that people should be given the opportunity to work where this can be done, but I think it is soul-destroying for people engaged in various projects to be told that in spite of their best work, their best efforts and all the organisation involved, it is a losing effort.

I should like to know whether this extra capital will change the kind of results that we have been getting from this project. If not, could we have a change of policy in relation to the growing of grass meal to some other kind of grass growing operation, even if it is for the purpose of growing grass for laboratories where scientific experiments can be carried out in relation either to the growing of grass or to the feeding value of grass from this type of soil in comparison with any other types of soil in other localities?

If this concern is to continue in operation as a grass meal project operating all the time on a losing basis, at some time or other we must make up our minds to face the fact and to change the activity there and to see whether at this particular station we can carry out some other kind of work in relation, if you like, to the growing of grass. Apparently that was why the thing was started in the first place. As I say, the experts said that grass could not be grown there compared with other soils in different parts of the country which are more suitable for the growing of grass.

That is all I have to say in relation to this matter. It was established contrary to the advice of the best experts at that time when they were told the purpose for which the project was being established and what it was hoped to achieve.

Senator Dooge in dealing with this Bill went into some detail about the advantages of a committee system. I do not propose to follow him on that. As he said himself an answer has been given by the Taoiseach in the Dáil during the past few days which indicated the matter is being further considered. There is no doubt that the committee system will have many advantages but it could also have disadvantages. However, in the circumstances in which it is being further considered, I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me at this stage on this Bill to discuss that matter further.

Senators Dooge and Crowley did less than justice to the Members of this House in suggesting that the only information available to them was in my speech introducing this Stage of the Bill. The Senators are, of course, aware of the fact that the reports from the company—not up-to-date reports, I admit, but nevertheless a number of them have been appearing year after year and are available to the Members of this House. I am sure that anybody who was interested enough in this project will have referred to them.

Furthermore, in so far as Parliamentary efficiency is concerned, it does not appear to me that it would make for more efficiency to have a Minister come in here and spend a great deal of time giving the House a lot of detail which the House may not want to hear. I have considerable details of the operation of this company available to me but I do not wish to inflict on the House a recital of the facts and figures which the House might not require.

Nevertheless, the procedure that is followed at present without any committee system allows that any Senator during the course of his speech may indicate information which he would like to have and if the information is available to me I can give it when concluding the debate on this Stage before the Senator has made up his mind as to the attitude he will adopt when the question is put to the House.

Senator Dooge referred to some queries raised in Dáil Éireann and he pointed out that I did not reply to them when bringing this matter before the House. This is perfectly true. However, I intend to reply to them now. I did indicate in the other House that if this information were required when the Bill came before this House, I would produce it or failing that, the Deputy who raised the queries could get the information directly from me.

Incidentally, before I go into this matter I should like to point out that there are quite a number of commercial rivals of Min Fhéir Teoranta who could be said to have a vested interest in seeing that Min Fhéir Teoranta did not compete unduly with them. I have no doubt that there are some commercial rivals who would be very happy if Min Fhéir Teoranta were wound up. Some of the criticisms that have been made in regard to this company, particularly in the other House, were clearly based on allegations made to Deputies by commercial rivals of Min Fhéir Teoranta and in that respect they must be viewed in the light of the source from which they came.

One of the matters raised was the question of the percentage of protein content in the grass meal produced by Min Fhéir Teoranta. The Deputy concerned said that if there is less than 16 per cent protein—the company's grass meal is of little value and does not come up to the standard of quality required by most consumers. The same Deputy also asked how often the grass is harvested, if it is harvested once, twice, three times, four times or five times a year. The position in this regard is that the Department of Agriculture lay down standards required in regard to protein content in grass meal and these specify that for high grade grass meal a minimum of 16 per cent protein is required and for grade 2 or standard grade, as Senator Flanagan referred to it, the minimum protein content required is 14 per cent.

Min Fhéir Teoranta produce both grades and what they produce is subject to inspection by the Department of Agriculture. Their plant is visited regularly by inspectors of that Department and random samples are taken for testing. In addition to that samples are taken from various customers of the company throughout the country and they are similarly tested. Some of the company's customers are manufacturers of feedingstuffs and they have the Min Fhéir and other grass meal manufacturers' products analysed independently of official samples. In so far as the Department of Agriculture are concerned, the grass meal produced by Min Fhéir Teoranta complies fully with the standards that have been laid down by the Department.

With regard to the query about the frequency of harvesting the grass this depends as, indeed, it depends anywhere else, on weather conditions. Favourable weather conditions may permit of five cuttings in a season while adverse conditions may allow of only three cuttings.

The suggestion was made in the other House and here again by Senator Rooney that Min Fhéir sell their products at a very low price thereby undercutting the commercial producers, the private sector producers, and that they do so simply because they have State money behind them. It is my information that it is the normal practice of all grass meal manufacturers to dispose of unsold stocks at the end of the season at the best price they can obtain and that all manufacturers cooperate with one another in this task. Consequently, according to the information available to me, it would not be correct to suggest that Min Fhéir Teoranta are using their position of having State money behind them to undercut their competitors. In fact, all the producers whether in the private or public sector follow the same practices at the end of the season.

The question as to whether there is any co-operation between Min Fhéir Teoranta and the Peatland Research Station is also raised. Senator Flanagan dealt with that from personal knowledge and I wish to confirm from the information available to me that there is the greatest possible liaison between Min Fhéir Teoranta and the Peatland Research Station.

Senator Dooge suggested that it seemed a little strange to him that I should come here and talk about meeting the board and about plans for future development to be worked out that I should do this before I get the money from the Oireachtas. I am making this comment also in the context of the allegation of lack of information.

The position is that in introducing this stage of the Bill I gave considerable detail about the original capital proposed by the company, how it was expended and the effect of the excess expenditure on capital requirements, meaning that the working capital available was very substantially cut down. It does not seem to have done any good. Some Senators have heard it but have ignored it. It must be clear enough that the directors were not in a position to do any great development work or to improve the performance of the company very much when they did not have working capital available to them. Within the limit of what they had available, they have done a first-class job in improving the performance of the company.

This is not to say that I am satisfied that this company, viewed as a commercial proposition, have had a satisfactory performance. I do not think they have. Viewed solely from the point of view of a commercial proposition, it is unrealistic to assess this without having regard to the working capital available to the company. If we want to view it on a purely commercial basis, we must apply normal commercial criteria to it which includes an assessment of what was available to the company by way of ordinary and working capital. On this basis this company did not have enough working capital available to them. This is one of the things which we hope to cure as a result of this Bill.

Furthermore, the market in this field has not been as buoyant in the last few years as it was previously. There are a number of reasons for this. There are conflicting views as to whether this situation is likely to continue. It seems clear enough that there is considerable scope for improvement in this company, firstly, in the sales methods and organisation. They have been weak in this regard. There is also room for improvement in regard to their products. I have indicated that it is intended to examine the possibility of diversifying into certain aspects of grass production for animal feed and not have it just as plain grass meal. We must consider grass cubes and grass biscuits. This requires further examination. It seems to me in a situation where the market is doubtful that the right commercial approach is to examine the possibilities of diversification in the product, and diversification into markets which are more attractive and more secure than the existing market. As I have indicated to the House, this is being done.

There are other areas of operation which could be improved. Within the limits imposed on the company heretofore, their performance has not been bad but there is room for improvement. I believe that by the injection of the capital proposed here it will be possible for the company to improve their commercial performance. I have also indicated that I intend to meet the board of the company at an early date in order to ensure, as far as I can, that the lines which I desire, and which I believe both Houses of the Oireachtas desire, will be followed by the company in the future.

This is not to say that I am guaranteeing to this House that this company will be commercially viable in five years time. The information available to me suggests that they will, but I am not in a position to give a cast-iron guarantee to the House that this will be so. In these circumstances, it is natural enough that Senators should ask themselves the question which I had to ask myself when this problem was brought to me. I asked myself whether we are prepared to close down this project in the light of the information available to us about past performance and future prospects and in the light of the effects, social and economic, on this very remote area of North Mayo in respect of which a much more adequate picture than I could paint has been painted by Senator Flanagan.

It seems to me if the prospects of this company of being viable were nil one would have a clear-cut issue in which to make a decision. If that was the position many Members of the Oireachtas would still decide that it should not be closed down. But that is not the position. The position is that the prospects of viability, in my view, are better than 50-50. This, in conjunction with the very important social and economic aspects of the matter in that area of the country, all add up to a very compelling case for this injection of capital. This was the conclusion to which I came on examining this matter. This was the conclusion to which the Government came when it was submitted to it. This will I hope be the conclusion to which this House will come having considered the matter now.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages today.
Top
Share