I think that Deputy Lemass himself will recognise that the type of speech he made is easy to make and is not helpful really in any way, because the position, as we look at it now, differs from the position as we had to look at it. When we were trying to get the sugar beet factory started we sent people to the Continent to interview various firms and individuals interested in the manufacture of sugar from beet, to ask them would they consider undertaking the establishment of a sugar beet factory in Ireland. Various people were interviewed. Three large groups were interested. One, a French group, sent representatives to the country, but finally refused to make any offer. Two groups, a Dutch and a Belgian group, made an offer. We had discussions with them, and finally a representative of the Belgian group with whom we were discussing the matter said: "We are prepared to set up a factory here if the following rates of subsidy are paid." His offer was more advantageous than the Dutch offer. The Dutch firm which made the offer has a great many factories in England. We had either to decide to have a factory at a subsidy which people who would start it would take, or decide to have no factory. If we waited five years we might have been able to get the factory set up at a cheaper rate, or might not.
If we compare the rate of subsidy being paid for sugar produced in this factory with the rate paid for sugar beet in the two pioneer factories in England for the first ten-year period, we find the difference is only 6d. per hundredweight. For the two first years of the ten years of the two pioneer factories the rate worked out at 22/6 per hundredweight. For the pioneer factory in the Saorstát the rate worked out at 23/- per hundredweight. If we leave out these two pioneer factories which, for two years, got a subsidy at a higher rate, and take the ordinary ten-years' scale, we find that the average rate works out at 19/9 in England, as compared with 23/- in the Saorstát. The people with whom we discussed this matter had reasons that seemed to be sound for holding out for a higher rate here than in England. What difference would have been justified is a matter we cannot determine and, at any rate, it is immaterial now. The real position was, we were offered the rate. They agreed to set up a factory here at a rate of subsidy that was not substantially different from the rate that had to be paid by the ordinary factories in England, and that was not very widely different from the rate paid the first ten years for other factories in Great Britain. The Belgian group that agreed to set up the factory, as a matter of fact, were full of doubts themselves, and at one stage had actually to be persuaded to go on. We know that there had been stormy and disturbed conditions in the country. They were afraid of all sorts of organisations against them. They were afraid that in various ways their task would be much more difficult than it was in Great Britain. As I say there was a period of a month or two during which we were very much afraid that we should not have the factory set up at all.
The difficulties these people anticipated did not materialise. The difficulty people outside anticipated did not materialise. Although no prospectus was issued and no public appeal made for capital here, a great many inquiries were made. There was a great deal of private solicitation, and the result was that practically no capital was obtainable here. It may be that there were people who would put up some small amount of capital if a prospectus were issued and a public appeal made, but, on the other hand, a great lot of people who would put up capital for any sort of enterprise normally were approached by private people. Money was not obtainable from amongst people whom one would expect to invest, as there was no great confidence in this great enterprise. The enterprise has succeeded. There have been no strikes and no ill-behaviour on the part of any section of the community. The farmers, instead of holding back growing beet for a year or so, have grown a big acreage for the first year and as big an acreage as the factory can cope with in the second year. The company is undoubtedly making very big profits, but there is no reason really why we should grudge them the profits. They took the risk. The fact that the profits are big in no way impairs the experiment. We can deduce from the profits and other facts shown in the accounts what money there is in sugar beet. We can deduce as well from the results of the operation here what can be done in future, and whether that industry can be carried on without a subsidy or with some reasonable subsidy as if the profits of the factory were not small. Because the profit is big, the factories well-equipped and run on modern lines, we are better able to get at the facts as if we had a small factory, badly run, badly equipped, and making much smaller profits.
Some Deputies said that if we were setting up another factory now we would not pay as large a subsidy. Of course, we would not. Apart from the difficulties which exist, because the revenue position has difficulties, we would not consider anything like the present rate of subsidy to a second factory, and the Deputy is entirely wrong in saying that no one else would set up a factory if he did not get the same rate of subsidy as the Carlow factory. If the Carlow factory are making huge profits, there are some people prepared to put up with smaller profits who would be prepared, at a profitable rate of subsidy, to set up a factory. As a matter of fact, the bigger profits are in Carlow the more likely it is that other people will be prepared to set up a sugar factory at a very much less subsidy. If the Carlow people mismanaged and made small profits, other people would say, "We cannot carry on at a less rate of subsidy than Carlow."
The outlook which really grudges the profits made by the Carlow Company and which complains about them is not an attitude which helps the manufacture of sugar beet. By the end of this year when we have the accounts for the factory we will have sufficient information about the matter to know what would be a reasonable subsidy to pay to a second, third, or fourth factory. Having that information and knowing what the entire cost of the taxpayer will be, we will be in a position to determine whether, for the sake of having a second, third or fourth factory, it will be proper to add a particular sum to the Estimate or have taxation lowered and not have additional factories. While we recognise that this experiment is very costly to the community we are entirely satisfied with it. It will demonstrate to us whether sugar beet is really an industry which could be established here. I may be wrong, as we have very little information to go on, but I doubt whether the beet industry can ever be carried on entirely without a subsidy. I think, however, as there are so many benefits attaching to the existence of the industry, to some of which Deputy Aird referred, that it would be always a good thing to pay a certain moderate rate of subsidy. I do not want to indicate a figure for what I would say is a moderate rate, but, after a year or two more, most of us will know more about the industry and be able to gather information, and would be able to say whether it is worth paying a permanent subsidy of 2/6, 5/-, 7/6 or 10/- a cwt., and thus we will be able to say that it is worth paying so much.
Having arrived at the figure which it will be fair to take from the taxpayer for the sake of keeping the industry in existence, we will be able to go into the accounts of the company and will be able to ascertain whether a reasonable return on capital can be obtained from a sugar beet factory at that rate of subsidy while, at the same time, paying wages to the workers which would keep them in a reasonable state of contentment and also inducing farmers to grow a sufficient acreage of beet. The experiment undertaken in Carlow will give us good grounds for determining what our future attitude is going to be in regard to this most valuable industry because, though we all may differ about the method by which it would be done, we all desire to keep up and increase, if possible, the tillage acreage in the country. This is an industry which, if it can be established and more widely spread, will tend substantially in that direction. It also has the advantage that it gives a not inconsiderable amount of employment at a time when employment is apt to be scarce.
Deputy Briscoe asked about by-products. I understand that last year and certainly for the year on which we are entering, all or practically all the by-products will be used at home and that there will be no necessity to export any of them. I could not give Deputy Doctor Ryan any information as to the price at which pulp is being sold. I do not think it would be desirable that we should interfere in that matter. The price of pulp will, and should, properly be regulated by the price of other foodstuffs, and the factory should be quite free to sell it at a price which it can obtain and at the price which it is worth to the farmer who buys it. Deputy Moore asked about the Oxford method of extracting sugar from beet. I do not know that it has yet been shown to be a commercial success, but if it is shown, and if it does what is claimed for it, undoubtedly we will face up to a new situation in regard to sugar-beet. It may be that in those circumstances there would never be any question of having five or six factories and a new method of organisation would have to be adopted. I do not think, however, that we have reached that stage yet.
Various Deputies referred to the price paid to the farmers and to the possibility of decreasing the acreage, and it was suggested that the Government should ask the directors of the factory to take such steps as would maintain the acreage at the present level. The growers of beet have an association. I think most of them are members of it, and they have a committee and spokesmen to represent them, and, really, the business between the factory and the beet growers should be allowed to be conducted in the way that business is ordinarily conducted, so that the representatives of the beet growers should meet the representatives of the manufacturing company and make their bargain. Somebody said that the factory must decrease the area under beet and must decrease the quantity of beet which it would take. That is not so. It will only be paid a subsidy on 10,000 tons of sugar, but it may decide to make 20,000 tons, and it is a matter for the beet growers and the Company to thresh out when deciding the price. The beet growers may say: "We will accept such and such a price if you are going to manufacture 20,000 tons, but we will have another price if you are only going to manufacture 10,000 or 12,000 tons."
