When the adjournment hour was reached on the previous occasion I had just opened the argument with regard to the second of the three tenders mentioned by the Minister for Finance, and, indeed, the second of the two of which he spoke favourably, because the third, as the House will recollect, he put on one side as of no account. I had supported the Minister on the board principle of the Bill. I had contended that not only was the subsidy necessary, but that the subsidy is the wisest proposal that could be made in aid of the object to be effected, and that the object to be effected is a great national object. The more I study the matter the more completely convinced I am of the truth of what I said, that in regard to the rejuvenation of Irish agriculture, this is, in its own way, quite as important as the Shannon scheme. It was argued both by Deputy Johnson, and since the introduction of the Bill, in certain newspapers, that the subsidy is too great. It was also argued that the method by which the Government proceeded was wrong. It was further argued, not by Deputy Johnson for the moment, that there should be more than one factory.
So far as I had proceeded, I had defended the methods of the Ministry. The procedure taken was that of setting up an inter-Departmental Committee, because the provision of public money in aid of the stimulation of tillage in the way of growing beet and in aid of industry and the removal of unemployment, by assisting the setting up of a sugar factory in connection with the growing of beet, affected not merely the Ministry of Agriculture, although it affected the Department of Agriculture primarily, but, as is obvious, it was a matter of concern for the Department of Industry and Commerce, and as it involved the expenditure of public money, with equal obviousness, it affected the Minister for Finance. So that an inter-Departmental Committee was set up, very properly, and the whole question was investigated. The next stage was the receiving of tenders.
There is a great deal of confused thinking going on in the public mind with regard to this and similar propositions of the Government. I welcome it, of course, as a healthy sign that there is any thinking at all in the country, even though it be confused and obscure, but the thought with regard to this takes the form that sometime the Minister for Finance ought to have advertised and invited applications. Now, the real fact is that this production of sugar from sugar-beet is a very highly specialised kind of industry, and what the Minister was obliged to take account of was, who were the great pioneers and who were the great successful workers in this particular sphere?
The tenders came. Notably the two best tenders came from the countries of two small nations that have made this thing a success. So far, I had already argued on behalf of the procedure followed by the Government. My next point was that the Minister for Finance regarded the offer made by Monsieur Lippens, who is associated with Belgian enterprises of this type, as the best offer in contrast with the actual arithmetic of Mr. Van Rossum.
Undoubtedly it would appear at first blush that the Lippens' offer was the better one. I was directing myself to that though, I am afraid, I tried to run two arguments concurrently. I was using the criticisms of Mr. Van Rossum on the inter-Departmental Committee's propositions to show that the Minister's offer of a subsidy was not too high, but I was using it also to show that, if we consider not the difference of mere figures in regard to how much Van Rossum offers the farmers per cwt. for beet or what exact amount he asks for by way of a subsidy as compared with the corresponding items of M. Lippens, that while the Lippens' offer appears the better, when we take into account the special character of the experience of Van Rossum, more particularly in relation to the setting up of an absolutely new industry in this country, that the Van Rossum advantage outweighed anything that might exist contra because of the difference in the amount to be paid to the farmer per cwt. for beet, or in the amount of a few pence in regard to the subsidy.
In that connection it was necessary to go into the history of the attempt to establish a beet sugar industry in Great Britain. I will not weary the House with more detail than is necessary, but I might briefly recapitulate the references as to what the Minister said about one of the factories in England, that known as the Kelham factory. I might remind the Minister that before the Kelham factory was brought into being at all, and before the attention of the British Government had been drawn favourably to the necessity for State aid to the sugar beet industry, there had been a Van Rossum factory established at Cantley, in Norfolk. I dwelt on that before, but it is necessary to return to it. The Van Rossum enterprise in England has now some 20 years' experience. The English people are not a people who throw bouquets, more particularly to foreigners. At one of some official interviews the question of the subsidy, or relief from taxation, was before the British Ministers, and a special tribute of praise was given to Mr. Van Rossum in regard to his standing in the sugar world, and more particularly with regard to the value of the magnificent services that he had rendered to the British industry at a very difficult period in the history of its foundation.
Now, this is the special claim that I make with regard to the Van Rossum tender. Dutch capital was put into that factory practically 20 years ago. One of the group tendering on the present occasion for our subsidy was among the group which provided the capital—a man who was for 20 years was the leading professor in the State Technical School of Holland, which turns out technical experts for the sugar industry. He is regarded in Europe as, if not the pre-eminent specialist, at least, one of the small group of noted specialists in this matter. Well, they brought over their group of skilled workers, skilled chemists and engineers, and trained the British, until now at the end of 20 years there are skilled Englishmen. Now the group can do that for us. It is very far from my purpose to say anything against M. Lippens or his capacity or the capacity of any group that will work with him. I am not arguing against his tender or against the acceptance of his tender. I am, as I hope to make clear as I proceed, on a different line. My case—to anticipate—is that for the best to be got out of the present move of the Minister for Finance, there should be (in fact, I would say there must be), at least two factories set up concurrently. I am seeking to show that these two factories are available now, and that at a later period it is possible they may not be forthcoming, and that a chance of incalculable value would have been lost to the nation. It was in that connection that I quoted the very wise remark of the Minister for Finance, that so often the history of Ireland has been a history of lost opportunities, opportunities not seized.
To return to the Van Rossum experience, one of the difficulties of beet growing, as I understand it, is that unless the tillage is of the proper sort the best results, as in the case of every other crop, cannot be expected. There is one critical stage in its culture, and that is the stage of "thinning." It has been established beyond all doubt that according as the thinning is postponed, one day, two days or three days, the yield of sugar from the beet in question is diminished proportionately. Therefore, if I may use the language of medicine with regard to certain diseases, there is a time of crisis in the condition of the patient, and at that crisis he needs special attention if he is to recover. Similarly, in the growing of this crop, this is the critical period at which highly specialised attention has to be given. In the first few years it is not to be expected that the Irish farmer growing beet will be thoroughly expert, and it would be in the interests of the factory which is looking to receive his beets for manufacture, to give help and advice in co-operation, no doubt, with what our Department of Agriculture would naturally provide in the way of instruction. Now, a very important element in the consideration is the skilled worker. In the figures that I read out to the House—and the House, I must say, was very indulgent in allowing me to proceed in reading out such a host of details—one of the heaviest items of expenditure was in connection with expert labour. It amounted to a huge figure, and it was the same in the two estimates—the estimate for dealing with 100,000 tons of beet and the estimate dealing merely with 50,000 tons of beet, for the production of four or five thousand tons of sugar. In comparison with that the cost of unskilled labour was trivial. So that to make this a success, and a success it must be made, and I share the confidence of the Minister for Finance that it will be made a success, it would be very necessary that in addition to the provision of capital and all the other requisites that this skilled labour should be forthcoming. I need not dwell upon what is so apparent, that those who have organised British labour will be better able to do so again in Ireland. Unfortunately our people are not great linguists but no difficulty would be experienced in this matter. The men who learned to speak these things to English farmers, to train them, and to give them the requisite knowledge, will be able to do so in English here. That is an enormous asset which the Van Rossum group are able to provide. I lay great stress upon that.
I ask the Minister for Finance who compares 24/6 per cwt. subsidy required by M. Lippens, or, at any rate, given under the Bill to M. Lippens, with 25/6 per cwt. asked for initially by Van Rossum, and compares 54/- for three-year contract beets, as provided in the Bill, with 53/- and some pence odd as in the tender of Van Rossum, to note that though arithmetically the differences are slightly in favour of M. Lippens, the balance, on the whole, is very much in favour of the Van Rossum tender. In any case it is unnecessary for me to labour that as regards price, because I am in a position to say that the Van Rossum group, at the instance of the patriotic Irishman of whom I spoke before, are quite willing to work their factory—to put up a factory, and put in their capital, and to work upon the terms of the Bill, so there is no difference in terms at this stage. It is merely difference of prestige, greater experience, and I believe the State ought to secure both of these factories.
The Minister very rightly said the other day that it is idle to talk of six or seven factories. Of course it is: it is ludicrous. But the Minister, I am afraid, was persuaded, at any rate for the time, that it is equally idle to talk of two, because of what it would cost to the revenue. Now I admit it would cost a good deal to the revenue, —it is absurd to say, "I admit," because it would be manifestly imbecile and idiotic to deny it, for a subsidy is a grant of public money. But if the Minister would allow me I would ask him to consider it in this light. Year by year, so long as the subsidy lasts, there is a loss to the revenue, but is there not likewise a gain to the wealth of the nation? There appears to be a loss to the revenue, and it is, in fact, a diminution of revenue. In this connection, I used a phrase the other evening that some people profess to regard as merely a rhetorical flourish on my part—namely, that I prefer to regard this as a great national investment paid in instalments. I take this opportunity to explain what I meant, namely, that instead of talking of a loss of revenue I call it a contribution from revenue. That contribution, by subsidy, is made year by year for a limited period, and I say this is State money invested in an enterprise which is going to fructify most bountifully, and I call it payment by instalments because it is a contribution annually. I say again, and this is not rhetoric, if it is regarded as a great national investment, what are to be the dividends? You look for dividends in regard to investments.
Perhaps, for the sake of logical order, I should consider first, what is the amount in question. The Minister spoke of one factory as involving, in ten years, £2,000,000. That sounds a staggering amount. But it occurred to me, at the time, that if I were to put in statistical form the sum total of meat consumed by the average man in ten years, it would sound staggering. Let me make a calculation. The average man eats a pound of meat per day; that is half-a-stone a week; 26 stone a year; 260 stone in ten years; that is to say, a ton and a half of meat. People would say, "What? Does John Jones, or Harry Smith propose to consume nearly one ton and three-quarters of meat, not to talk of other foods, in ten years?" Or suppose we take the salary paid to some men in high place, and, instead of considering it yearly, multiply it by ten. The Treaty pledges us to pay the Governor-General a salary of £10,000 per year, that is £100,000 in ten years. That appears appalling. Now, instead of calling it £2,000,000, let us begin at the opposite end. It is only in 1924, after 20 years' operation, that the Cantley factory has been able to get 124,000 tons of beet. Its average for the first nine years was 37,000 tons. Now we should be doing exceedingly well, and far more than I, who take a roseate and optimistic view of the matter, would expect, if we were able to have a yield of more than three or four thousand tons of sugar. I will put it bigger, and make the case against myself stronger. I will say there are five thousand tons of sugar. The subsidy upon that, at £24 10s. a ton, is under £130,000, and in the first three years it will not be improved upon. So the annual contribution to this investment for an additional factory is £130,000. That is not so very much, considering the huge sums that we expend, and rightly expend, upon relief schemes, and this will be a relief scheme.