Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1931

Vol. 39 No. 16

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Beet Sugar Subsidy (Resumed).

"That a sum not exceeding £162,500 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for payment of the subsidy in respect of Beet Sugar (No. 37 of 1925)."—(Mr. Blythe).

Debate resumed on motion: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy Davin).

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)

It was said on the last day that we should have taken this matter to the Dáil long ago, and it was suggested that if we did we would receive helpful suggestions and that very likely this dispute would be settled. This discussion has come before the Dáil and we have had the benefit of a couple of hours' debate upon it, and what are the helpful suggestions we received? Deputy Derrig suggested compulsory arbitration or, to use his own phrase, "something else." In fact, running through the whole of the debate there was that suggestion from all Parties that we should do something undefined. Some suggestions like compulsory arbitration got a sort of doubtful blessing from Deputy Derrig and a complete condemnation from Deputy Davin. Generally speaking, it was to be left to ourselves, that we would do something, that we ought to stand by our people, etc., etc.

Deputy Derrig, however, to some extent did commit himself to compulsory arbitration as an evidence that he was extremely anxious to settle this dispute, and he implied that a figure of 49/- might be paid for beet. I shall ask the Dáil to consider that point. That was thrown out in an indefinite way by people who are anxious for a settlement. Let the Dáil mark this, the Beet Growers' Association, the people genuinely interested, the people who are to get the money, the people who have not such an interest in the politics of the matter but have an interest in the economics, asked for 46/-. I dare say they would take less. I am not saying how much less. They asked for 46/- The helpful people all out to settle it ask 49/-.

Compulsory arbitration is an easy phrase, easily understood and like everything else compulsory arbitration is supposed to settle all difficulties. But anybody who has any experience of business and who thinks over this proposal of compulsory arbitration for a moment will see it is not so simple as it looks. Why compulsory arbitration in this case? Are we to confine compulsory arbitration to the beet growing and to the beet factory? I presume we are. I presume compulsory arbitration is not going to become general in business in this country. I could understand Deputies taking up the line definitely that "we are State Socialists, we think the business of the country should be run by the State" because that is what compulsory arbitration in the long run, analysed back, comes to. They do not take that line. In this case there is to be compulsory arbitration. What is the distinction between this business and others? There is one distinction between this class and numerous other classes of business and that is that in this business the State is giving a big subsidy. Am I to take it that there is to be compulsory arbitration every time the State gives a subsidy, that somebody outside the business is to fix the price at which the business is to buy raw materials and presumably to fix the other price?

But I will come to that later. It should be remembered that this is not the only industry in the country run with the help of money which does not come out of the business itself but comes either from the taxpayer or the consumer. Practically every factory which is operating in this country under a tariff is getting good money from the consumer, who is the same person as the taxpayer. Are we to have compulsory arbitration there? If Deputy Derrig and other amateur economists of Fianna Fáil will think over it they will find you cannot say "compulsory arbitration" and stop at that. Compulsory arbitration raises a number of very difficult and thorny questions which would divide all parties. Further if we are to have compulsory arbitration not only in this case but every case where there is a State subsidy, whether it comes from the consumer or the taxpayer, what is the arbitration to be about? The price of the raw material? Is it to include the wages of the employees? Are the farmers who are supplying the beet to the factory to accept compulsory arbitration in regard to the wages they are to pay their employees? That is what it amounts to. You cannot have it both ways. The fact that the words "compulsory arbitration" have been used merely shows an absence of any argument, any thought or any practical suggestion. Coming to Deputy Davin's point, the suggestion of compulsory arbitration came along with the suggestion that 49/- should be paid, which is 3/- more than the Beet Growers' Association ask. That will give the Dáil some idea of the anxiety of Deputies opposite to settle the dispute. It will give the Dáil some idea whether the real anxiety was to keep the dispute going and to make political capital out of it. Deputy Davin suggested that the factory should be taken over.

Mr. Davin

The beet growers suggested that.

Mr. Hogan

The beet growers and Deputy Davin.

Mr. Davin

They suggested compulsory arbitration also.

Mr. Hogan

I am dealing with what was said here. The Dáil was to settle all. Deputy Davin, I think, gave that suggestion his blessing. Shall I put it that way?

Mr. Davin

Yes.

Mr. Hogan

The suggestion was that the factory should be taken over at this price; the difference between what it cost and the amount by which it has depreciated. I am not dealing with that now. How far is that principle to go? Does the Deputy really think that throwing out a suggestion of that sort is practical or is going to solve—leave out politics now that the election is over—the question? Is it going to give any sense of security to people who are seriously thinking of starting business here? Deputy de Valera, of course, made a typical suggestion. He wishes to repudiate the agreement.

Mr. de Valera

I did not say anything of the sort. Quote me.

Mr. Hogan

Yes. The Deputy suggested that the subsidy should not be paid this year.

Mr. de Valera

I did not. Quote me, please. Will the Minister let me read it? I will read everything, if the Minister wishes, that I said.

Mr. Hogan

Read that reference. I have not the book here, but I will not let this point pass.

Mr. de Valera

Neither will I.

Mr. Hogan

Deputy de Valera suggested that the subsidy should not be paid to the factory this year.

Mr. de Valera

I did not.

Mr. Hogan

And that instead it should be paid to the farmers as compensation.

Mr. de Valera

I did not. What I said was quite clear, that this year, on account of the beet not being grown, portion of the ordinary subsidy would be unexpended and that that unexpended portion——

Mr. Hogan

I did not understand that.

Mr. de Valera

Deputy Gorey started off the hare.

Mr. Hogan

I assure the Deputy that I do not read his speeches. I accept what he said. There were other suggestions made. There was a suggestion that there was something wrong in depreciating to the extent it was depreciated. It was suggested by Deputy Davin that 15 per cent. has been earned by the factory since its inception. There were other references which in my opinion were a thorough disgrace to the Dáil.

Mr. Davin

I did not say since its inception. Quote me.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy mentioned one figure, fifteen per cent., and he left everyone under the impression that that was what the factory had paid.

Mr. Davin

Last year. Leave out politics.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy interrupted sufficiently the last day. I ask him to remember he is not in the Chair. There were other references to Congo methods which were a disgrace to the Dáil. There were references to foreigners and so on—a new sort of Sinn Féin—the operations of foreigners and the Congo methods. All that is going to help to settle the dispute and to encourage enterprise! I say that these references, whatever the merits of the dispute this year, are a disgrace to the Dáil. They are references which were not made at any time by the parties who are suffering most, the farmers themselves. It was left to the leaders, the public representatives, to come here to make statements of that sort purely and simply for political purposes.

Mr. Davin

Are you including Deputy Gorey in that?

Mr. Hogan

I am including everyone who made the statement. It was Deputy Davin who started on the Congo methods.

Mr. Davin

I will not withdraw them.

Mr. Hogan

I am not asking the Deputy to withdraw. I say these statements are a disgrace, apart from the criticism of foreigners. If foreigners come in here they are entitled to the benefit of the law. If they do anything which is not right we can deal with them. While they keep the law and give employment and establish industry they should not be met by irresponsible criticism of that sort. The fact that Deputies in the Labour Party or that members of the Fianna Fáil Party make statements of that kind shows conclusively that they are more interested in keeping the dispute going than in settling it. The fact is that there are only two parties here who are seriously concerned and who are attempting to settle this dispute, the Beet Growers' Association and the Government of the Irish Free State.

Mr. Davin

Tell the House when you are going to settle it.

Mr. Hogan

I will come to that. The Deputy might contain himself and leave the question of order to the Chair. I had not Deputy de Valera's quotation before me, and I accepted his statement. I will give him an extract from what he did say:

At least, he (that is I) could say now to the company: "We have been generous with you. You are asking our people to grow beet at a price that is uneconomic. That price gives you an unfair profit, and because the circumstances are such we are going to help our own people in their fight against you and support any organisation that they set up to defend their interests against you."

That is what we are to do this year.

"Any subsidies that we are going to give you or remissions to encourage beet growing we will use, and more money as well, in order to see that those who have had to devote their land to other crops will be put in a position to fight you and if necessary to see that you get no subsidy."

Mr. de Valera

Will the Minister please read the end of column 1956?

Mr. Hogan

Is this it?

To get back to this particular matter, we want to see the powers that are here to defend our own people exercised. If there is a portion of the subsidy not paid as a result of the beet not being supplied, we think it is only fair that the farmers who have been compelled to sow other crops in place of beet should not suffer a loss by that, and portion of that subsidy should be devoted to seeing that they do not suffer a loss.

That makes the matter quite clear. I had a distinct recollection of that statement. However I leave that point. Wild statements have been made here and elsewhere which have not tended to settle the dispute, with the result that the country as a whole has got a very wrong opinion of the merits of the case. I will try to show what the merits of the case are.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear!

Mr. Hogan

To clear up a few preliminaries, it has been suggested that the company has been extremely wrong in depreciating to the extent that they have depreciated, and secondly that they have paid a bad price for beet from the beginning and high dividends. I want to say first that it must be realised that the factory is not getting as good terms here as they could have got in England. From that point of view it must be remembered that the subsidy in England applies not like our case to one factory or even to two factories, but to anybody who establishes a factory there. If this factory had been established in England a higher subsidy would be paid. It would be higher by about £400,000. One point that can be made is that during the last year, as a result of the very large amount of sugar which this factory made in the first eight years and as a result of their being confined to a certain maximum quantity of sugar, the subsidy here during the last year would not be big enough to enable them to carry on.

If the subsidy here were increased during the 10th year by an amount sufficient to bring it up to the amount on the 8th year the factory would be still getting less by £300,000 in the 10th year than any English factory of the same size. Further if the 1s. 3d. which is being got this year in England were not given during the next three years the factory here would still be getting less than the English subsidy by £300,000. If both considerations were present, namely, that we increased the subsidy here by £100,000 in the past year, to bring it up to the amount of the previous year, and if the English factory were not getting the 1s. 3d. which they are getting this year, and which everyone knows will continue even in these contingencies, the factory here would be receiving £100,000 less than the factories in England receive for the ten-year period. That was the bargain we made. In England all the factories to a very great extent have been financed by State-guaranteed money. Here the factory was put up at the expense mainly of the directors, put up entirely out of their own capital. That should be known. We must deal with both sides if we are to get the merits of the case. In the first year they practically paid 10 per cent., for the next three years 15 per cent., and last year they had a loss of about £15,000. That was never mentioned. The balance sheet has just come out. I am not sure of the amount but I know that the balance sheet shows a loss of about £15,000. That is very far from being an exorbitant dividend, considering everything, when the four years are put together. The dividends here are not bigger certainly than those paid by similar factories in England. From that point of view the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company declined, and, in my opinion, rightly declined, to be compared with any factory except the best group of factories in England. There is no question about that and it should be realised by people with the interests of the industry at heart that the factory in Carlow is certainly one of the best in the world. It is admittedly a better factory than the best and most efficient in England belonging to the Anglo-Dutch group. The output on coal and per sugar content of beet is as high as in any factory in Europe and those in charge decline to compare it with any but the best factory in England. That is a position I have great deal of sympathy with. People should get credit for that efficiency and from that point of view their dividends are similar to the dividends paid by the Anglo-Dutch group in England.

Further it has been stated that their provision for depreciation has been enormous. In that connection it has been pointed out that the amount of subsidy would not only pay for the beet, but would give them a certain amount over. Deputies will have to realise that they do not know all about sugar beet, and that there are some things which they have to learn in regard to sugar factories. They will have to realise that it is a fact that it is the invariable custom in every sugar factory to attempt to depreciate in the first ten years and it is a fact that the balance sheets show that the depreciation, plus reserves of the Anglo-Dutch group in England has been considerably higher than the depreciation, plus reserves of the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company. I compare them with the Anglo-Dutch group in England for this reason. They are admittedly the best groups in England. Their factories run about 13,000 or 14,000 tons of sugar. They are admittedly the best factories in England and you can very readily and with justice compare these factories.

I take the position in regard to depreciation at their factories at Ely, Ipswich, and King's Lynn. These factories have been in operation for respectively five years, five years and three years—giving something of an average of over four years. The total capital of these factories was £1,666,000. Their total reserves are £446,000 and their total depreciation £772,000. If you add these figures you will get £1,223,000, while the total amount of the capital invested is £1,666,000. I would ask Deputies to compare these factories with the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company who have not depreciated or built up reserves to anything like the same extent as the Anglo-Dutch group. The point of that is this. The subsidy in Ireland is somewhat smaller than the subsidy in England and at the same time even though they got a bigger subsidy, if you compare the four years which have just passed up to 1929-30, the Irish factory, even though the subsidy was smaller, paid the same price and made practically the same dividends as these English factories. They paid as good a price on a smaller subsidy. This particular year their subsidy is higher than the English subsidy.

The English factories have consented to go on this year without any profit, with nothing for depreciation and no reserve. The Irish factory have put forward the case, and on these figures it must be admitted that there is something in the contention, that the English factories can afford to do that this year because their reserves and depreciation are so very much bigger. An examination of the figures makes it clear that there is something in that point, that they have a bigger depreciation and bigger reserves. The total amount of reserves and depreciation of the Anglo-Dutch group is £1,223,000, while the total outlay is £1,666,000. They have built up reserves and depreciation to more than three-fourths. That is the answer of the company to people who say that they should accept this year the same terms as in England. Their answer is, in fact, "We gave better terms for the past four years than the English companies—better terms in the way of price and better terms generally. If we had given worse terms and depreciated to a greater extent we might be able perhaps to do what the English companies are doing. We have not done that, and you cannot have it both ways."

I say there is something in that point. It is no use, as Deputy de Valera suggested, in saying that they are getting a subsidy which covers the price of beet and something over. That is so, but no factory in England has been able to run on any other terms. The point is, that whatever subsidy they are getting is smaller than the English subsidy, and, as I say, the English Act is a general Act. Anybody who comes in can establish a factory under it. It invites factories. People will come there and take the best terms they can. It is a fair test to take. The argument that the amount paid by way of subsidy is more than is paid for the beet, if that argument is used, can only be used for one purpose, and that is, that the production of beet is not economic. If that argument is to be used and is to have any validity, it can only mean that the production of sugar beet is not economic. If the Irish factory is getting enough to pay for beet and leaving something over, the factory is in the same position as the English factories—in fact, they are in a worse position, because they are getting a somewhat lower subsidy.

Coming to the merits of this year's dispute, it is true that the factory is getting a bigger subsidy than it got last year. It is true that when you add that increase and also give the company the benefit of the decrease in the price which they are paying for beet, a decrease of from 46s. to 38s., in that way they save something like £80,000. They, of course, put up figures to show that as compared with the year 1929-30 there is a drop in the price of sugar and in sugar pulp which would amount to £80,000 or £90,000. To make a long story short, they produce a balance sheet which shows that on a payment of 36s. per ton for beet they would provide ten per cent. dividend and leave this year some £10,000 or £7,000 to carry forward.

Mr. Davin

And provide £45,000 for depreciation.

Mr. Hogan

I am coming to that. Now we come to the other side of the case. I say that up to this year the beet factory gave good value and I think the growers will agree with that. 46s. was a good price last year. It was a good price last year and it was a goodish enough price the year before. As a result of that price the farmers did get a fair share of the subsidy. In fact for the last four years this factory, coming in here at a time of great difficulty, gave good service to the country, not only to the farmers of the district but gave good value in the production of sugar. They gave up to this year as high a price and in some cases a higher price, and they did it on a somewhat smaller subsidy. This year a dispute occurred and as I have told you their case is that the fall in the price of sugar and beet pulp, together with the increase in some other things would more than counterbalance the increased subsidy this year plus the advantage they gain by paying a smaller price for beet. On these figures there can be no question of doubt about it, the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company put themselves definitely in the wrong. Say that we can make all the other admissions as to depreciation, that we can admit that they depreciated up to this year normally, that their interest, taking everything into account, was not exorbitant—we can admit all that without weakening our case one iota— that even this year they attempted to get across an agreement which was not fair to all the growers. They admit that this year they are increasing the provision for depreciation from £40,000 to £45,000. That is unfair, and £40,000 or ten per cent. is the normal orthodox depreciation in a beet factory.

It does seem extraordinary that in a year in which sugar fell to a price which was below or round about the pre-war price, that in a year in which sugar fell to a price below which experts agree it can scarcely fall further, the company increased the provision for depreciation. They excuse themselves by saying that they were uncertain as to their position in the tenth year. That is no excuse. The factory even as scrap with the buildings around it would be worth £50,000. There is no excuse to depreciate by £5,000 extra this year and endeavour at the same time to pay a ten per cent. dividend—what they themselves admitted is to place the entire fall in the price of sugar on the farmers. That was unfair. Further they over-insured themselves in certain small items which taken on the aggregate are rather big. They budgeted for a very big price in the full period. It is generally agreed and it was clear enough to me in the negotiations that took place between myself and the factory that they over-insured themselves there. They also over-insured themselves in regard to the increase in freights. Above all they over-insured themselves in regard to the price of sugar. Of course the price of sugar is a very important item and they calculated at the beginning of the year what they could pay. Sugar had fallen to about 6s. 9d. per cwt. Some months afterwards when it was too late to settle the dispute the text of an agreement was published in the papers, an agreement come to by all the sugar manufacturers of Europe and in other countries as well, and since that agreement the price of sugar has been going up a bit. I think it might reasonably be inferred that the company knew when they were making this agreement that sugar was not likely to fall any more. I have no doubt that they were prepared to carry forward £5,000 for depreciation. There were other items which would bring that sum up to £15,000 or £16,000.

All these items gave them £15,000 to £18,000 to play with which in all equity could have gone to the farmer in the price of beet. I am not saying this on behalf of the Beet Growers' Association. I am not committing the Beet Growers' Association to any price. I am merely saying that on their own figures, this year there was that amount of money there which could have been given. I am merely saying this as I was closely in touch with the Beet Growers' Association and knew their minds—I was, as also was the President, in touch with the Sugar Manufacturing Company and I can say that if they had shown any tendency to see the equities which were standing out there, this dispute would have been settled. Unfortunately they wanted to fight and the fight is over now so far as this year is concerned. It is unfortunate, but it is over as far as this year is concerned. We made, as everybody knows, as Deputy Derrig knows, because he was in touch with the Beet Growers' Association, every effort—I as Minister for Agriculture and the President, as Head of the Executive Council—to compose this dispute.

We failed this year after the Spring had definitely passed and even when it became too late to sow beet, we immediately took up the question of re-opening negotiations for the next four years. We have made a considerable amount of progress in the last month. Deputy Davin said that the Sugar Manufacturing Company are not going to meet the Beet Growers' Association. I hope he is wrong, but if that is so, it opens another question. On the contrary I have been in negotiation with the Sugar Manufacturing Company within the past two months and I am hopeful and in fact I believe that they will meet them. I believe that this dispute can be settled in the coming year without recourse to any of the heroic measures put forward such as compulsory arbitration, compulsory acquisition of the factory or compulsory this, that or the other.

I think that that is really all that is to be said on the merits of this case. If Deputies consider that the Government should establish an industry here and insure it against any possible dispute they are asking for the impossible. It cannot be done. Everybody would agree with that if they were to consider it dispassionately. It is hard for the Beet Growers' Association and the farmers who are losing heavily this year to realise that. I do not expect that the farmer in bad times will remember that he did well out of this crop for four or five years. Naturally, he concentrates on his misfortune this year when he cannot grow the crop and has to find a very much less remunerative crop. It is only natural too that politicians would make a certain amount of capital out of any trouble that arises, but having some regard for the future of the country and to the fact that other industries must be established here and the fact that their own policy has been to subsidise or to encourage industries, both by the money of the taxpayers and of the consumers, and by State interference, I would expect them to remember that. When you come to consider it dispassionately, in nine out of ten cases can there be no alternative to what Deputy Derrig calls haggling but what I call negotiation.

Deputy Davin stated he would not have compulsory arbitration. It might lead us on a very long road. I do not care on this point what the Beet Growers' Association say. I think I am talking more really for the farmers of the country when I say that they will not have compulsory arbitration also, either on this or other matters. Compulsory arbitration is the last thing except acquisition of the factory is the last thing. This dispute has lasted for one year unfortunately, but I believe that it will be settled in the coming year. It is as between 38s. and 46s. a ton, and it does not justify any such heroic measures. I believe it can be settled and will be settled, but there is this to be said: if it is not settled, if either party put themselves in the wrong, it will have to be dealt with. Anybody can make one mistake. Every dog, I believe, is entitled to one bite. People do things and say things on the spur of the moment in heat. Everyone can make allowances for that, but they have been fighting long enough. They have tried it out now, and I should say that both sides are in a better mood at the moment to end the dispute.

I was told that the farmers are suffering great loss. They are. So is the factory. It may be a very brutal way of settling disputes, but the Labour Party, the farmers and everybody else settle disputes in that way. They usually stand on their legal rights. Every party insists on its legal rights. If they considered it a little more calmly they would find that stupid, obstinate insistence on legal rights gets nobody anywhere. To come to business and settle it is far better than compulsion. The fight is over for this year, and, as I said, I believe it will be settled in the coming year. Both sides have to remember that the taxpayer has a very big interest in this factory and that we cannot stand by and see an establishment which has been conducted successfully and creditably up to the present wrecked because tempers have run high. Moreover, we would not stand by that. I need not go into that question any further at the present moment. There is no use dealing with difficulties that have not yet arisen. I have been in constant touch for the last four or five years both with the Beet Growers' Association and with the factory. I believe, notwithstanding or, if you like, because of what happened this year, that this dispute will be settled for the remaining years of the subsidy, and I do not propose to adopt any of the heroic measures that have been suggested here for the settlement of it.

Dr. Ryan

We on this side of the House are put at a very serious disadvantage by the Minister. He generally manages to express his views fairly strongly here, both on the question at issue and on the people who have spoken, but if we attempt to state our views on a question like the sugar beet industry we are immediately told that we are doing it in order to make political capital. We are always out for political capital, and the Minister is always out for the good of the beet growers or whoever it may be. It is an extraordinary thing. I suppose we should be thankful to have such a high-souled man at the head of agriculture in this country, that he would not attempt to make political capital out of any question. It must be very annoying to the Minister to have such political opponents as we are, who never see the justice of the case, but who are always making political capital out of it.

The Minister said that it was part of our policy to subsidise certain industries and certain production. Let us accept that. Broadly speaking, we are perhaps more inclined to subsidise certain production than the Government is. Is it not much more to our interest to see an industry like the sugar beet industry succeed than it is to the interest of the Minister for Agriculture who is against subsidising production in any way? If the Minister wants his policy of free competition and production, without subsidies or anything else, to succeed it is only going to convince the people of this country that the Minister's policy is right if the sugar beet factory fails or if the whole sugar beet scheme fails. It is going to militate against us if that experiment fails. Hence we are very anxious that the thing should succeed, whatever the Minister may say—I do not think he believes it—in this House.

The Minister made two statements here the last day. He repeated one of them to-day. He said that first of all the bargain he made with Messrs. Lippens was an excellent one and secondly he said that when you compare the Carlow Beet Sugar Factory with a factory of equal size in England the English factory would get £400,000 more in subsidy in ten years than the Carlow factory would get. He challenged us to dispute that figure. It is a very difficult figure to dispute because the subsidy is paid in different ways in the two places. In England there is a subsidy on molasses. Here there is a subsidy on sugar and there is also a remission of duty. The only thing I can do in order to throw some doubt on what the Minister has said is to quote a speech that he made here in 1928. Speaking on this subject in this House on the 24th of February, 1928, first of all talking about the excellent bargain that was made he said: "I believe that but for the events of the last five years we could have had a factory with a smaller subsidy—not very much smaller, because when you compare the subsidy in our first ten years with the English subsidy there is not such a tremendous difference." He had made a speech about the petrol tin, the smell of burning houses and so on, and he went on to point out to the people of the country how we had been responsible for making a worse bargain on the sugar beet than would have been the case if there had been no Civil War. But since then evidently the Minister has come to realise that the people of this country do not now lay the blame of the Civil War on us and he says the bargain was the best that could be made.

He went on to say that the subsidy for the first ten years worked out at, he thought, 22/6, and the English subsidy for the first ten years was 19/-. On the 24th of February, 1928, the Minister stated in this House that for the first ten years the subsidy in England would work out at 3/6 less than the subsidy here.

Mr. Hogan

Remember that would be if I were calculating it on the first two or three years of this subsidy. They made less than 13,000 tons of sugar, and handled less than 22,000 tons of beet. In 1928 we had only the figures of the first two or three years. If you calculate on less than the total quantity of sugar which the factory could make being made you will, of course, increase the subsidy, but immediately after the first two or three years, as of course we foresaw, the beet growers even more than doubled the capacity of the factory. The Deputy will get the figures in this publication which has been issued.

Mr. MacDonogh

Have not you made a contract in any case? Keep to your contract as decent people do.

Mr. Hogan

If Deputy Dr. Ryan likes I will give him the subsidy each year for ten years.

The President

19/6 is quite right, but there is also a molasses duty.

Dr. Ryan

As a matter of fact, I was going to quote the President also, because his contribution on the same day is interesting.

Mr. Hogan

If the Deputy likes I will give him the exact figures each year.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, later on. The subsidy here, according to the Minister on the 24th February, 1928, was 22/6, while it was 19/- in England. It is possible that the Minister may be able to put a better complexion on that now than he was on the 24th of February, 1928.

Mr. Hogan

That is not fair. 19/6 was the direct subsidy. The total subsidy was 26/9.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister stated that for the first ten years it worked out at, he thought, 22/6, and in England at 19/-.

Mr. Hogan

That is the direct subsidy.

Dr. Ryan

As I say, the Minister had made a very hot speech about petrol and burning houses. He wanted to prove that only for the Civil War things would have gone better for the Carlow Beet Factory.

Mr. Hogan

I was referring to the direct subsidy in both cases.

Dr. Ryan

The President spoke about half an hour afterwards. He said: "Taking into account what the Minister has said that there is a difference of 2s. between the subsidy here and in Great Britain"—the Minister's case is that the difference is 3s. 6d.

Mr. Hogan

That is the direct subsidy.

Dr. Ryan

You did not say direct.

Mr. Hogan

Look at the figures, it is clear.

Dr. Ryan

In column 382 the Minister is reported as stating the difference to be 3s. 6d. while in column 394 the President is reported as stating the difference as 2s. That is over three years ago. If the Minister had been right in his statement of 3s. 6d. difference the subsidy here would be exactly £400,000 more than the subsidy in Great Britain. In half an hour the difference of 3s. 6d. becomes 2s. and after an interval of three years the £400,000 becomes reversed. In any case, I have read the statement of the Beet Growers' Association. I believe they went to considerable trouble to get the figures they produced, and the balance sheets and so on would appear to support their case. They make the very definite statement that if you compare the factory in Carlow with a factory of similar size in England for this year the factory here would be getting £100,000 more than the factory in England. I do not think it is fair for the Minister to come here and state that we are getting off £400,000 better than a similar factory in England. I do not think it is fair for him to come and challenge us to prove it wrong. He should have given us the figures when he was making his speech.

Mr. Hogan

I made that statement three weeks ago.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think it was fair for the Minister to throw three or four columns of figures now at me, not giving me an opportunity of looking into them, and asking me to accept them as proving his case. We have had a good deal of talk from the Minister and others about the businesslike way in which the agreement was made. We very seldom have a discussion here at which we do not have a lecture from the Minister on business methods. He tells us "that is not the way business is done." Another time he tells us "anybody who knows anything about business will do it in this way." I find that the Minister was delegated by the Executive Council to negotiate with Messrs. Lippens in order to start this Carlow Sugar Beet Factory. He was the person who was there negotiating with Messrs. Lippens, and we have it that when the Minister was making this agreement with Messrs. Lippens he went in to make it in the most businesslike way possible. He did conclude an agreement with these people, guaranteeing them a subsidy for ten years, but he only got in return a guaranteed price for the beet growers for three years. That, apart from anything else, should have made it fairly plain to anybody that the agreement was one-sided. If there were two parties to that agreement, and if the two parties had maintained their rights in that agreement, surely the Minister would not have guaranteed them a subsidy for ten years unless in return the people who were to manufacture the sugar were prepared to guarantee a price for the beet for ten years to the beet growers, or, in default of that, a provision should be made in case of dispute that there would be some arbitration machinery to settle that. That was the businesslike way the Minister made this agreement.

We have been told before to-day how this agreement was made. The Minister speaking down in Athy on the 14th June told the people how he made this agreement. He told them how when he met Mr. Lippens that there was a financial adviser of Messrs. Lippens present. He told how the financial adviser told Mr. Lippens that this was no country for him to come into at all. He reminded him of the Civil War and he said he doubted that the farmers would grow beet satisfactorily and that labour was unreliable. The Minister told this financial adviser that he was a liar. We were also told dramatically by the Minister how Mr. Lippens said: " I believe you," and started the factory. Messrs. Lippens started the factory having been assured by the Minister that the financial adviser whom he had brought in was a liar, when he had told him that it was inadvisable for him to start a factory here. That is the businesslike way in which this was done. The only convincing point in the story was that the Minister was able to call the financial adviser of Messrs. Lippens a liar.

The publicists of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party were so delighted with the story that they really got out a leaflet and distributed it all over Kildare showing how the Minister had the wit and courage and wisdom to call an Irishman a liar and that Mr. Lippens turned to him and said: " I believe you." That leaflet was got out in order to convince the people of Kildare that Mr. Hogan was a good business man, that he was not afraid to say to an Irish financier "You are a liar," and was always prepared to talk out his mind on any subject. That leaflet was sent out headed "That is the stuff behind Conlon." The people of Kildare evidently thought that they would like something more substantial behind Mr. Conlon. They were not a bit interested in the caption "Straight Speaking Means Straight Government," and they disregarded the advice of "Vote No. 1 Conlon."

The Minister when talking on this subject tried to give the House the impression that he was holding the balance of power as fairly as any man could do between the two parties. First of all he told us about the costs at the factory. He gave us a very fair outline of the case that the factory had. Then he turned to the Beet Growers' Association and told us the case that they had and he wound up by saying " Taking everything into consideration it is my opinion that the factory could afford to pay a little more for the beet." And so they could.

I believe that the Minister has not for the last five or six years shown the factory that he was prepared to stand up against them, as he was prepared to see the price of beet reduced if such a reduction should be necessary. The Minister speaking here on the 24th February, 1928, was asked a question as to whether there would be other factories started in this country and he said "there is no question of starting other factories on the basis of subsidising agriculture to the tune of £24 an acre." There is only one meaning that can be taken from that answer and that is that in his opinion the subsidy that was going to agriculture was too high, that the farmers were getting too much out of the beet and that if it were ever possible to start another sugar factory in this country it should be on a basis of giving less for the beet. Talking on the very same subject on the 24th February, 1928, the Minister said, in dealing with the factory: "I cannot understand why people take a balance sheet in connection with this experiment, examine it and say that the company made £50,000 net profit, £114,000 gross profit and consider that this is criticism of the scheme. I consider that is in his favour." Then he goes on to say: "I am sorry they have not made £100,000 or £200,000. I should like if they had made £400,000." Contrast those two statements. Imagine a man like Mr. Lippens or anybody else connected with the factory reading that speech and seeing the Minister had stated here publicly that he was not going to have any more to do with sugar factories when the price paid for beet amounted to a subsidy of £24 an acre.

Mr. Hogan

Yes, I said I was not going to have anything to do with any other factory on the basis of such a high subsidy.

Dr. Ryan

That is what I say.

Mr. Hogan

No. On the basis that the price paid was too high—that the subsidy was too high.

Dr. Ryan

Is it the point that the price paid for beet was too high?

Mr. Hogan

No.

Dr. Ryan

He was not going to have any more to do with the factory where the price paid for beet amounted to £24 an acre.

Mr. Hogan

That is not the point.

Dr. Ryan

The only meaning I can take from that is that the farmer was getting more than in the Minister's opinion the country could afford.

Mr. Hogan

On that year the farmer was getting 50s. a ton for his beet and no farmer could expect that price to go on.

Dr. Ryan

I admit that. The farmers at a later period were satisfied to take less. I am contrasting that with what the Minister said that he was not going to have any more to do with the starting of other factories when the farmer was getting 54s. for his beet.

Mr. Hogan

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister said: "I am not going to have any more to do with factories where the subsidy paid for beet amounted to £24 an acre."

Mr. Hogan

Certainly.

Dr. Ryan

Take it that the owners of the factory read that statement and here is their impression: "Here is a Minister who would be delighted to see us getting bigger profits and he will also be delighted to see smaller prices paid to the farmers because then he will be in a position to start other factories." That is the impression they will gather from that statement of the Minister—that they would have the Minister behind them in cutting down prices to the farmers and also in making bigger profits. I do not know whether the owners of the factory read that statement or not. Whether they did or not, if they did not, what I have suggested here is what they would do if they had read the Minister's speech. That is what they have done. They have consistently tried to cut down the price of beet, and they have continued in spite of the slump in the price of sugar to pay £60,000 in the form of dividends, £40,000 depreciation, and £6,000 reserve. The Minister has told us now that he has seen an advance copy of the balance sheet for the last year and that it shows a loss.

Mr. Hogan

I have not seen an advance copy of the balance sheet, but I have a statement which I believe is correct.

Dr. Ryan

Another matter that Deputy Gorey mentioned here the last day is this. The Deputy mentioned, whether on his own initiative or encouraged by other members of his Party I do not know, but he told us it was a delicate matter, and he said that certain people interfered in this dispute, and that it would be much better if they had not interfered. I quite agree with him, and I want to tell him this, that he thought I had laid a trap for him. I did not. I thought at the time when he was speaking of this matter that he was referring to somebody on this side, because he could never say anything too bad of this side or when anything bad was to be done it was somebody on this side that did it.

Mr. Gorey

That would not have been a delicate matter.

Dr. Ryan

No. But I thought the Deputy was getting extra polite. At any rate, I asked the Deputy who it was, and now I want to say publicly that I have just as much courage as. Deputy Gorey in saying that the Bishop of Carlow should not have interfered in this dispute.

Mr. Allen

Deputy Gorey did not say it.

Dr. Ryan

Well, he did say it, to give him his due. The Bishop interfered in this dispute. But in interfering he only expressed the same sentiments as the President himself expressed. The President said that he had spoken to the farmers privately, and they told him that they were getting a fair price for their beet and that they were satisfied.

The President

That is something I do not recollect saying.

Dr. Ryan

The President does remember what he says as a rule.

The President

I do not remember saying that.

Dr. Ryan

It was published in the "Irish Independent" on the following day that the President said that he had privately discussed the matter with the farmers and that they said they were quite satisfied with the price they were getting. The President did not say whether he was referring to this year or last year. He might have been referring to last year's price. The beet growers might come to the conclusion that the efficiency of the Carlow factory was such and that the price was such that they should take the price, and that there should be no interference by the Beet Growers' Association with the growers. Again, the Minister told us here that it was a most successful bargain that was made with the factory owners when the factory was started, that it was one of the best factories in Europe, that it is most efficient and that it is making profits. All these things are admitted. In the debate here a few years ago, on the 8th November, 1928, when the Minister for Finance was pressed on the matter as to why he did not encourage the investment of capital in the Carlow Sugar Beet Factory, and even go so far as to invest some Government funds in it, he said that it was the policy of the Government to make the people who were coming in own a substantial part of the factory.

His idea was—it may be all right— that if the company which was coming in did not own a substantial part of the factory they might not give the same care or the same time to the working of the factory as they would if they were practically full owners of the place. The Minister has said that the subsidy is less in England this year than it is here. It is much less.

Mr. Connolly

That is the point. Let the Deputy refute the Minister's figures. That is what we would like to hear. Do not read the speech you wrote out last night, which has no relation to the facts.

Dr. Ryan

That is the man who asked three different Ministers about flooding and never asked the right one. The subsidy in England this year is 6/6; it is 22/6 here. The Minister of Agriculture in England some time ago brought in a supplementary estimate for an extra 1/3, and the money given under that estimate to the beet factories in England was only given on condition that they would pay no dividends, put nothing towards depreciation and nothing to reserve. In other words, that the whole benefit of the State subsidy would have to go to the growers if this extra 1/3 per. cwt. was to be given. If it is a fact, as the Minister said, that the owners of our factory could have got better terms in England than they are getting here, it is strange that the English factories this year have to work on that basis of not paying any dividends, of not putting anything towards depreciation and to reserve. That is the condition of getting the subsidy in England. There is no such condition here. If a factory working here can get this subsidy, and is permitted, if it can so manage, to pay a dividend and put money towards depreciation and reserve and everything else, as long as it can beat the farmers down to a certain price that will suit it, surely that factory is working under better conditions than in England?

The Minister also said that the Subsidy Act passed in England would admit any number of factories that came along. The Act here, including the agreement, I believe gives a sort of monopoly to the factory. Surely a monopoly is more favourable than coming in and taking your chances amongst others. A factory in England has no guarantee that another factory will not come into the same district next year, and there is no guarantee that it will get a certain amount of beet. The Minister on the last day referred to Deputy de Valera's wrecking policy. I believe he went so far as to say that Deputy de Valera's policy was always a wrecking policy. I do not know if the Minister—he denied it on one occasion —thought that about Deputy de Valera in 1916. At least there are men behind him who applauded that statement who thought in 1916 that Deputy de Valera's policy was a wrecking policy. What is his wrecking policy? His wrecking policy is going to wreck the Minister in trying to maintain the factory here and get the beet growers down to a certain price. Deputy de Valera read extracts here when the Minister tried to misrepresent him, and he made it quite clear what his policy was as stated in column 1956 of the Official Reports.

If there is a portion of the subsidy not paid as a result of the beet not being supplied we think it is only fair that the farmers who have been compelled to sow other crops in place of beet should not suffer a loss by that and a portion of that subsidy should be devoted to seeing that they do not suffer a loss.

That is the policy which is called a wrecking policy. Previously on that day, when Deputy Derrig was speaking the Minister asked him what was his policy with regard to the beet growers and those who were coming in to grow beet for the first time and Deputy Derrig said:

I want to see the small growers getting the benefit out of it as well as the big growers, but I am not prepared to say that the small growers should come in now at the expense of breaking up the Association.

The Minister then said: "That is my position also." We want to see the small growers getting the benefit from this as well as the big growers. We seem to be united on both sides of the House that we are not prepared to see the small or the big growers coming in now and breaking up the Association which is making this fight for a better price.

Mr. Hogan

They are entitled to come into the Association.

Dr. Ryan

I agree with their coming into the Association. Deputy de Valera made a suggestion that would give these people a chance to fight. He made the suggestion that, if you have growers of beet who this year said they were going to stand by the Association and were not going to grow beet, that they are going to grow barley and oats instead, and are going to suffer a loss by doing so of £4 or £5 an acre—it may be much more—that these people should be helped and should get part of the unpaid portion of the subsidy in order to help them to put up that fight. The Minister called it a wrecking policy. The Minister is prepared to pay a subsidy to the factory for the people to come in and grow beet and wreck the Beet Growers' Association. He is prepared to subsidise the factory to fight the Association by getting other people to grow beet. Because Deputy de Valera said: "Help those who are not growing beet to grow another crop," he said it is a wrecking policy. What is it going to wreck? Is it going to wreck the Carlow factory in its fight? It is going to compel them to pay more. That is what we want to see. That is what Deputy de Valera's suggestion amounted to, that we should compel the factory to pay more but because this suggestion came from Deputy de Valera it was a wrecking policy.

We are told from another source that it does not matter very much what subsidy we give to the factory. The estimate this year is £108,000. Then we come to "Pamphlets for the People, No. 1"—there are more to follow. This pamphlet asks, "Where do taxes go to? Back to the people." That is issued by Cumann na nGaedheal and we find mentioned among the taxes that go back to the people—the beet sugar subsidy of £108,334. That is part of the £23,000,000 that goes back to the people, according to this pamphlet. A most extraordinary thing is, according to this pamphlet, that the people pay in taxes £20,000,000 and £23,000,000 goes back to the people—£23,000,000 out of £20,000,000 goes back to the people! Part of the £23,000,000 that goes back to the people is the £108,000 beet subsidy. Let us take the last balance sheet of the Carlow factory. Out of the £108,000, £40,000 goes for depreciation, £60,000 towards dividend and £6,000 to reserve. £106,000 to the Lippens group out of the £108,000, and that is how the taxes go back to the people! It will be most interesting to see the other pamphlets when they come along, as this is only No. 1.

We are told that negotiations will be resumed. We were told in Kildare that they would be resumed on 7th July. The polling there was on 29th June and they had to leave a margin and they said negotiations were to be resumed on 7th July. On 8th July they were resumed in the High Court. The Beet Growers' Association were brought there by the owners of the factory for contempt of court and they were found guilty and had to pay the costs and so on. That is where the negotiations were resumed. Now they are to be resumed again. I believe there are several other cases coming on in the High Court so that there will be plenty of opportunities while they are waiting for the cases to be called for Messrs. Lippens and the Beet Growers' Association to talk about the price of beet. We are told that it is no argument to say that they are getting more in subsidy than they are paying for beet. It is not, I suppose, comparatively speaking—I mean the same thing may be occurring in England and in other countries in Europe. Even so, it is no harm to say it. According to a statement which I saw from the factory contradicting a statement made by the Beet Growers' Association, the factory stated that they received 58s. 9d. per ton for beet for the first four years and paid 54s. 4d., and they only made 4s. 5d. in addition to getting the beet for nothing.

I am not against beet growing. I think it is the proper thing to do. It is the proper thing to supply our own needs in sugar, as it would be in anything else. We certainly should supply our own needs in sugar, just the same as in anything else, even if we have to pay 4/5 per ton to the beet factory, as well as paying for the beet altogether. Deputy Heffernan, I am sure, would not approve of that. He made a very serious objection some time ago to paying millers half the price of wheat—only half. Here we are paying 120 per cent. Fifty per cent. was a grave scandal to the Farmers' Party but 120 per cent. was all right. The Minister says that we cannot have compulsory arbitration and perhaps he is right. He says we cannot have buying out only as a last resort. I put it to the Government that the suggestion made by Deputy de Valera was the fairest and straightest suggestion made here, because we are not entering into the question of compulsory arbitration, although I myself, sooner than see the beet sugar experiment a failure, would vote for compulsory arbitration if necessary. I would vote, if necessary, for the compulsory buying out of the factory and hand it over to the sugar beet growers rather than see the experiment fail. But we have the third alternative suggested by Deputy de Valera and there is no objection to it as far as I can see——

Mr. Hogan

None whatever.

Dr. Ryan

—none from the point of view of the people who are so particular about contracts. If they are particular about the sanctity of contracts let them keep their contract with the factory and pay the subsidy as they have contracted to do, but there is no objection whatever to subsidise a very important section of the community to put up a fight against the people from the other side who are putting up an unfair fight. Deputy Byrne said the other day that in his considered opinion as a lawyer the Government had no power to interfere. I believe they have. I believe that when two people make a contract both parties are entitled to expect the utmost good faith. That is, I believe, what they call uberrimae fides.

If the Minister for Agriculture made this contract with Messrs. Lippens and has maintained his good faith in the matter by paying the subsidy, even though he sees his own people wrongly treated, that is the utmost good faith on the part of the Government, and Messrs. Lippens should also show the utmost good faith. We are entitled to get the utmost good faith from them by seeing that they pay a fair price for the beet. That is one reason. There is another reason and that is, that an agreement can be broken if it is unconscionable. I believe that the Minister, when he was giving us an account of how this contract was made, showed that that agreement was made in an unconscionable way, because it is evident from the way the Minister turned on the financial adviser and called him a liar, and so on, that Messrs. Lippens were too well able for the Minister. Therefore you have an agreement made by one party who is an expert and knows what he is doing and the other party does not know what he is doing, and an agreement can be broken where it is unconscionable. That is the second reason why it should be broken.

We on these benches are supporting the motion to have the Estimate referred back. We would be prepared to vote against the Estimate completely and to have it held up, but we are prepared in the interest of peace and in the hope that a settlement can be made and that the Minister may succeed in bringing the two parties together to vote for Deputy Davin's motion to have the Estimate referred back. I believe it is up to every member of this House who is interested in the beet growers to see that the Estimate should be referred back in order to show the owners of the Carlow Sugar Beet Factory that they must do something reasonable to get this dispute settled. They will see that members of this House are dissatisfied with the way things are going if they refer the Vote back to the Minister and say: "Go settle this dispute before you get more money," but if the House passes this Estimate without referring it back then it would be a vote of confidence in the Carlow Sugar Beet Factory and for the way in which they managed their business not only for the last 4 or 5 years, but this year also in trying to break up the Sugar Beet Growers' Association.

Mr. Hassett

So much has been said by Deputies on both sides of the House on this Vote that I shall necessarily have to be very brief. I would begin by paying a tribute to the Government for establishing the sugar beet factory in this country at a time when there was considerable risk in establishing any industry in the country. I go further and say that every grower of sugar beet in the County Tipperary—and I am a beet grower myself—in the early years, at all events, after the factory was established made a considerable profit out of the transaction. The Government evidently at the time this factory was about to be established saw that grain was not a paying proposition; that the time was coming when grain growing was going to be a complete fiasco as far as bringing the cost of production into the pockets of the growers was concerned. It took considerable courage on the part of the Government to establish a factory of the magnitude of the Carlow Sugar Beet Factory. For the first year we were very well pleased. We appointed a body known as the Beet Growers' Association to look after our interests and we trusted them to see that we would get a fair deal. Men of considerable standing in the country were placed at the head of the organisation and any little differences that arose between Messrs. Lippens and these were happily tided over through negotiations. Latterly it would appear that as a result of the attempt which the factory people made to cut down the price of beet with fifteen and a half per cent. sugar content to 38/- last year it was for us growers of beet all over the country to consider whether or not that was going to be a paying proposition and it was time for the Beet Growers' Association to consider whether Messrs. Lippens, the owners of the factory, were going to give us a fair deal.

The Minister himself, who kept in very close touch with both parties, namely, the factory people and the growers, told us in the course of his speech to-day that the sugar beet growers were not getting a fair deal this year. He said that the factory people were allowing £40,000 for depreciation, that they were paying 10 per cent. on the money invested and he went further and said there is no excuse for what they are attempting to do. They have over-insured themselves with regard to the price of pulp and increase of freights and in regard to the price of sugar. The thing he says can be settled without the compulsory acquisition of the factory. The farmers did well out of the factory up to this year. If we have done well out of the factory up to this year we are prepared to carry on. We are prepared to grow beet if we get a fair do in the time to come. There was one very hopeful note struck by the Minister and that is that he expects that this thing will be satisfactorily settled before next year's crop will be put down. I think anything we can do on both sides of the House towards bringing about a satisfactory settlement of the dispute ought to be done.

I do not like to say anything bitter about the owners of the sugar factory but it is rather galling at a time like this when the Minister was using every possible effort to bring about a peaceful and happy settlement between the parties to the dispute that the owners of the factory should bring some of those people that we trusted in the organisation before the High Courts and should mulct them in costs and continue that threatening attitude up to the present time. I think a stop ought to be put to that. If negotiations are going on between the Minister on behalf of the Government and the Beet Growers' Association on behalf of the beet growers, and the owners of the factory, then these proceedings of the High Court ought to be stopped.

What are the demands of the Beet Growers' Association. These are the demands:—1. "That the Irish Beet Growers' Association, Ltd., be recognised as the body representing beet growing in the Saorstát, and that all negotiations for and concerning the growing, delivery and fixing of prices with the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company during the subsidy period be carried out through the Beet Growers' Association." Those of us who followed the dispute know that the particular aim of Messrs. Lippens for some time past has been to smash the Beet Growers' Association. They know that if they can smash that Association of which we are members they would have the beet growers at their mercy all over the country, that they could deal with them individually and that they would be able to take into consideration the bad economic position of the farmers all over the country and that they could get down-and-out farmers all over the country—blacklegs all over the country—to grow beet at the price that is not economic. To do that they offered several sums to individual farmers, I might say, in the nature of bribes. The condition of agriculture is bad to-day and has been for the last few years. Now these people come along and say we will give you seed; we will trust you to pay us back when the crop is grown.

We will give you the manure so as to give you an opportunity for putting the seed into the soil. The factory owners do that at a time when farmers find it impossible to get seed and manures from local merchants and elsewhere, and consequently farmers of that type—farmers who are down and out—are glad of the opportunity to get something to put into the soil, even though they know eventually that it will not be a paying proposition. Now the second demand put forward on behalf of the beet grower is "that when a mutual agreement cannot be arrived at each party shall agree to submit the point in dispute to an arbitration board consisting of a representative of each party and a referee mutually agreed to, or, alternatively, appointed by the Government, both parties being bound by the decision of the Board." There is nothing very drastic in that demand of the Beet Growers' Association. There is nothing in that that the factory ought not to accept if they have a fair and a clear case. I assume that any arbitration board would act fairly as between the beet growers and the company, and that they would act as far as possible on the lines of doing justice as between the company and the growers. The next suggestion was alternative "that the factory be compulsorily or otherwise acquired by purchase and to be run on co-operative lines." If no settlement can be come to-I have discussed this matter with representatives of the beet growers themselves—then we are prepared to take over the factory and to work it on co-operative lines. After all, why should we not? It may be said that when the £400,000 capital necessary to be found for the factory was being looked for the farmers got an opportunity of contributing and that we had no confidence in the undertaking. Well, to begin with, at the time we knew nothing about the business; it was too big for us; we were not able to rise to the occasion; we had no training in beet growing, but we did our share, and we did everything we were asked to do once a company was formed. We produced sugar beet of a type that was second to none. We produced more per acre than the people of Belgium, than the people of Czecho-Slovakia, or the people of England or anywhere else where sugar beet has been grown as successfully as with us.

I do not want to labour this question much longer, but I think it would be the wrong time to import any great heat into the matter. Some of us feel very strongly upon the matter, and some of us feel that as growers unfortunately we were badly treated and some of us feel that our Association was badly treated. I appeal to the Minister and to the Executive Council to continue their negotiations, and to do everything possible to bring about an amicable settlement as between the factory and the growers, and to remove any undue obstacles that may be in the way. If the owners of the factory still persist in the unreasonable attitude that they have taken up in the past, some of us will find it very difficult to come in here and to support a subsidy for them this time twelve months if the matter is not satisfactorily settled.

Mr. Aiken

I think the circumstances already exist which Deputy Hassett said if they existed at some future time would compel them to oppose the Government. I think the time has already arrived. The beet factory, before the time for sowing, definitely turned down the beet growers' demands. At the very last minute they again turned them down. Now, a couple of months after the beet should be sown, they are still holding to the same position. The fact of the matter is that the factory have flouted the beet growers, and have gone so far that the Minister for Agriculture, who usually backs them up, says there is no excuse for what they did this year. On figures, he said, the factory put themselves in the wrong. Again, he said if the factory wanted to see the equities the matter could have been settled this year. Surely there is a situation in which Deputy Hassett, if he has any manliness in him, should come forward and definitely vote against the factory.

Deputy Ryan clearly stated that a vote for giving a subsidy to the factory this year was a vote of confidence and support in fact and in deed to the factory for what they have done to the farmers, and Deputy Hassett cannot get round that by any threat of what he will do in the future. He has the opportunity of doing it now, and we would like to see what he is going to do. I wish Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies would really act up to what they think in this matter.

I am perfectly certain that a large number of the members of Cumann na nGaedheal do not approve of the methods of the Government towards the Beet Growers' Association. The members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, no more than ourselves, have not the real figure. We are given one set of figures by the Government at one time, and within half an hour we get a completely different set of figures, just as in 1928 the Minister for Agriculture, in the course of the debate, stated at one time that the factory was getting 3/6 per ton more than similar factories in England. Later the President stated that the factory here was only getting 2/- per ton more than the factory in England, while last Friday the Minister for Agriculture stated that over a ten years' period a factory in England would get £400,000 more than the Carlow Sugar Beet Factory, thus completely reversing the figures given three years ago. Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies must know perfectly well that they cannot trust the Government. The Minister for Agriculture stated to-day that the factory here was not getting as good terms as a similar factory in England. I wonder if anyone can believe that. He forgot he had said that because he said that in England they invited factories. If this factory was invited to England, and if those who are running it could make more money there, why did they come here? Did they come here because they love us, because they love President Cosgrave, because he has fair hair, or because they love Deputy Hassett's blue eyes? The fact of the matter is, as any man with ordinary commonsense can see, a factory which was at liberty to go to England came here because it was thought that more money could be made here. That bears out what the Minister for Agriculture stated three years ago, that the factory here would make £400,000, or, as the President said, £300,000 more than it would make if it went to England. I think the commonsense deduction is that the factory came here because it would make more money. The British factory decided to forgo profits and reserves this year in order to give a better price to the farmers than would ordinarily be given. I think it is up to any Deputy who wants to support the Irish farmers to see that they get a fair show, and to support us by not voting the subsidy until the whole position can be examined. The Minister says, " Hands off the foreigner; we must keep contracts." Surely the contract with the Irish people, that Irish farmers were to get a fair price, should be kept by the Government. I hope Deputy Hassett and others will, when a division is being taken, show by their votes on the motion to refer back the question of giving the subsidy, that they are not going to stand the nonsense of the Carlow Sugar Beet people any longer. If there is any dispute between foreign capitalists and the Irish people let them show that it is the interests of the Irish people they will plump for when they are fighting for their rights.

Mr. Heffernan

I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have certain points of view that I wish to express. I might shorten my statement by saying that, having listened to what the Minister for Agriculture said, I am very largely in agreement with the opinions he expressed. There are certain aspects, however, of his statement with which I do not quite agree, and that I intend to explain. I listened to Deputy Ryan, the shadow Minister for Agriculture in the Fianna Fáil Party, expounding the theories and doctrines of his Party in regard to the sugar subsidy, and I could not help thinking that the Deputy must have almost forgotten that he was speaking in the Dáil and thought he was still speaking in County Kildare. I am sure Deputy Ryan was not unaware of the fact that certain prominent members of the Beet Growers' Association were listening to him, and that he had in the back of his mind the possibility, if not the probability, that next week the "Wexford People" or some other Wexford newspaper would have a full report of his speech, and that the farmers and the beet growers would know what a champion they have in Deputy Ryan. The beet growers in Wexford may remember however that when the subsidy was passed by the Dáil, and when the scheme was hammered out, we had not the advantage of the presence here of Deputy Ryan and his colleagues. Perhaps they may say that if they had been here we would have had a better scheme. However, we had not that inestimable advantage, and we had to work out the scheme as best we could, without their help. I have been very silent on this question, and I did not mention it in any speeches I made in the famous Kildare election. I claim however that I have a better right to speak on behalf of the beet growers' and their association than Deputy Ryan or than any Deputies on the other side. I think it cannot be refuted that the idea of having a beet growers' association here in Ireland originated in the first instance with me. When the scheme was originally passed I went on my own initiative and, incidentally, at my own expense, to England to acquaint myself with the working of similar concerns there. I visited one important factory and got into touch with the Beet Growers' Association formed there. When I returned I got into touch with people here in the Association to which I belong. I told them that it was essential that a beet growers' association should be formed in the interests of the growers. I believe it was on my initiative that the General Secretary of the Farmers' Union got to work and called a meeting and, as well as I remember, Deputy Gorey was elected the first chairman. Credit should be given to the Farmers' Union and to Deputy Gorey for the action he took on that occasion, because then, as now, we were a political organisation, and having started the Association we thought it inadvisable that an organisation political in character should continue to organise an association of beet growers which we believed should be non-political. Deputy Gorey generously withdrew and allowed a non-political chairman to be elected. That is my justification for speaking for the beet growers and for their association.

As to the problem with which we are dealing, and which we are trying to solve, I think that everyone who wants to solve it is entitled to get the facts and the figures available so as to try to discover who is at fault, the factory or the Beet Growers' Association. The figures made available yearly in the balance sheet are not sufficient to let us examine in detail the working of the Company so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the price offered is the highest that could be economically offered. We have fortunately available this year certain figures issued not by the Beet Growers' Association but by the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company in defence of the claim that they could only pay 38/- a ton. After examining these figures I am convinced that those who are running the sugar factory are convicted out of their own mouths in not offering a better price. I understand the figures were made available first to the Department of Agriculture and communicated by them to the Beet Growers' Association so that they are not confidential. The Minister for Agriculture dealt with them to-day showing that the offer of 38/- a ton was not as good an offer as the factory could make in the circumstances. If that is so we have them convicted out of their own mouth that they have not done as much as they should. The figures given are comparative figures between the working of the factory in the year 1929-30 and the probable effect of working it in 1931-32. Allowing for the various changes that have taken place in the situation, allowing for an advantage of 8/- per ton to the factory in view of the lower price offered for beet, from 46/- to 38/-, allowing on the other hand for the increased subsidy, for the fall in the price of sugar and pulp, the fall in the rate of interest on the reserves that the factory draws, and various other factors, they show that there is £44,800 available for distribution as dividends, a sun that is capable of paying approximately 11 per cent. For instance £20,000 will pay a dividend of 5 per cent. on the company's capital. I want to show that there is a simple way of dealing with the figures in order to show that the factory could pay a higher rate. There is a mistake of fact in the figures as they have been issued, and I think that mistake has been accepted by the factory.

There is a mistake of £4,000 in regard to the quantity of sugar manufactured. The factory only estimated on 150,000 tons of sugar beet being handled, whereas they dealt with 160,000 tons. That leaves £48,800 available for distribution. The figures also allow £45,000 for depreciation. That would be sufficient to depreciate the full cost of the factory in nine years, whereas in former years the balance sheet only allowed for depreciation at the rate of £40,000. I see no reason why the factory should increase the rate of depreciation this year. I think the rate of depreciation that existed was more than sufficient. Taking the additional £4,000 that is available for dividends, due to the mistake in the figures supplied, and the £5,000 in the rate of depreciation, we have £54,000 available for the payment of dividends. Examining these figures we get some idea of what the factory could pay. We take it that the factory has paid 15 per cent. dividends which is an unduly high rate in a year of unprecedented economic depression. We think the shareholders could get along nicely with a dividend of 10 per cent. which would leave a surplus of £14,000 available for distribution amongst the beet growers. That £14,000 would allow an extra 1/9 to the 38/- a ton which the beet growers were to get.

If, however, we say that 10 per cent. is too high the amount for distribution will be correspondingly higher. It might reasonably be put forward that in this exceptional year when there is general depression and when the farming community are particularly depressed, when the farmers who are getting 38s. per ton are probably receiving a price below the cost of production, we might say that 5 per cent. is a sufficient dividend for the factory. That makes available an amount which will allow for a payment of over 4s. per ton extra. Allowing the factory to pay a dividend of 5 per cent., they would be able to pay 4s. per ton extra to the beet growers. The figures with which I have dealt have not taken into account various other items which could be questioned and challenged and which would not bear very close investigation. For instance there has been, as the Minister stated, an estimate of the reduction in the price to be obtained for sugar pulp. With the estimate of the factory for the increased loss on the sale of sugar pulp, the Beet Growers' Association or those speaking for them do not agree. I think that the estimate of the Beet Growers' Association is as likely to be right as is the estimate of the factory. That is, the factory have allowed too great an amount for the fall in the price of sugar pulp.

There is another item which can be questioned. That is the interest that is credited in the balance sheet on the amount shown as reserves. The interest credited for the year 1931 on this amount has been considerably reduced. I cannot give the exact figures as I have not them before me at the moment, but the amount shown as bank interest was lower than in the previous years. It seems to me that the question of allowing interest on the reserves of the company at bank rate is an item on the balance sheet which might reasonably be questioned. The balance sheet shows a very large reserve and a very large amount for depreciation. Are we to understand that that is drawing interest at the ordinary bank rates? It seems to me that, allowing for a sufficient amount of cash to be used as working capital, it is not unreasonable to expect that the balance of the reserve might have been employed in some such way, which, instead of showing a decrease in the amount of interest, might reasonably show an increase. Taking the figures supplied by the factory itself it can be shown that, at the lowest estimate, they could pay 1/9 per ton extra to the beet growers even after allowing for dividends, while, if they forgo their dividends for this year and allow for interest on reserves and the various figures which I have quoted, they might pay anything up to 6/9 per ton extra. This figure of 6/9 is based on the idea that the factory, allowing for the general depression, would not pay any interest to the shareholders. I do not say that that is a thing we ought to demand or expect from the factory, but we ought to bear in mind that the factories in England—certain of the factories, not all of them, the Anglo-Dutch Corporation I believe—made the offer; I cannot say whether there was an agreement finally entered into—to manufacture sugar beet into sugar on a scale that would allow them nothing for profits, nothing for depreciation, or nothing to go to reserves.

The circumstances are somewhat different here, as has been pointed out by the Minister, but in view of the fact that the English factories were prepared to do that, and taking into account the unprecedented depression and the fact that a very great sacrifice is being asked of the farmer, it would not be unreasonable to ask, and we should certainly emphasise the fact, that the factory should be prepared to suffer some loss, that it should not throw all the losses on the grower, and that the company should be prepared to make some sacrifice, that they should be prepared to make a sacrifice in some way on a level with the sacrifices which the growers of beet are called upon to make.

Having dealt with that aspect, I have to my mind satisfied myself—I am speaking purely for myself and the small Party which I represent at the moment—that the factory can in the circumstances which exist this year, reasonably be expected to make a more generous offer than the offer which they have made. Undoubtedly the aggrieved party is the Sugar Beet Growers' Association. One must approach it from the point of view of what may be done. I have been listening to the Labour Party whose views were expounded by Deputy Davin, and to the Fianna Fáil Party, for any constructive suggestions of what might be done, and I have not heard a single constructive suggestion which does not involve in some form or another, breaking the contract. I listened to Deputy de Valera, and I heard him say that the Government ought to stand by their own people against, I think the word he used was, outsiders. The Government were asked to take a stand against outsiders. It so happens, in this case, that the factory's representatives are to a large extent outsiders, and the money which is invested in the factory is the money of foreigners, but all the money invested is not the money of foreigners, and all the directors are not foreign directors. Here is the point which I want to make. It is merely an accident, due to the circumstances which existed at the time, that the factory people are foreigners.

Mr. de Valera

I just want to correct the Deputy. I pointed out who are acting unfairly, as admitted by the Minister.

Mr. Heffernan

The question of unfairness does not arise at the moment. The suggestion is that we are told that our Government ought to get behind the people, our own people as against outsiders, against foreigners, to stand for our own nationals as against foreigners.

It is, as I said, a mere accident of circumstances that these people are foreigners. I have no doubt that if the technical skill, and if the money were available at the time here, the Government would have been glad to make a contract with the nationals of our own country, rather than with foreigners. I heard Deputies of the Fianna Fail Party speaking on this Vote in former years, and I heard Deputy Flinn on that occasion complaining that the Government did not take sufficient steps to ensure that Irish capital was put into the undertaking. It so happens that the factory is largely owned by foreigners, Messrs. Lippens and the other people associated with them, but it might equally happen that the factory might be owned by, say, Messrs. Flinn, Dowdall and O'Shaughnessy. If that did happen to be the case, would we be asked to take up the cudgels for our own people against a hypothetical corporation of hypothetical Irishmen— Flinn, O'Shaughnessy, Dowdall and Company? The situation would be just the same, and here we have this appeal to the prejudices of the people when we are told that the Government should stand for their own people against foreigners.

To my mind the question whether the factory is owned by foreigners or not does not arise. The question is that a contract was made. We are asked to take steps to repudiate that contract. We are asked to introduce an element into the situation which did not exist when the contract was made. The scheme might not have been all it should have been. The contract might not have been as tight with the factory as it ought to have been, but it was the best we could work out then. I am certain that, if suggestions of this kind were made to the factory people, that if we did introduce an additional clause into their contract, a clause for compulsory arbitration, or a clause that in certain circumstances the Government would have the right to buy the factory at their own price, the people who entered into that contract would either refuse to enter into it, or if they did enter into it would demand a much higher subsidy. It is no use playing round the question and suggesting that there would not be repudiation of our obligations, that the sacredness of the contract was not at stake. There is the question, as Deputy de Valera puts it, of fairness. There is no use in playing around these aspects of it, because we cannot introduce elements into the contract which were not in it at the beginning. Who is to judge of fairness? Are the growers or are we to be judges of fairness? If the working of a contract is not supposed to be fair, are we always supposed to violate the contract?

I, at least, am not surprised that suggestions of that sort come from Fianna Fáil, because, as far as I can gather, their whole policy is based on a repudiation of contracts. A contract is not to be kept unless it suits one party! Every contract that is made, no matter how small or big, even if it is only a question of buying a horse at a fair, can therefore be broken because one party is not quite pleased with the contract. One could very easily heeltap a contract in that way and say "That does not suit me," or "I did not get fair play." It is easy to stress it from that point of view. I do not believe in repudiating contracts. I have been pressed very hard by the growers, and I represent a county in which a good deal of beet is grown. I have been told by the growers and their representatives that it would be an unsatisfactory thing for me if I supported this Vote, and if I did not vote against it. I am perfectly aware of that. It will not be a popular thing for me with certain people because they do not fully understand the situation. I believe that in the interests of the country, and even in the interests of the farmers themselves, the best service we can do to the country is to say that we will stand by the contract which we have made, because if we break one contract to-day there is no reason why we should not break another to-morrow.

We have already gone out in the international market to borrow money to finance farm developments such as the Agriculturel Credit Corporation, which provides money for farmers. We are getting that money at about 4½ per cent. If we proceed to violate a contract is there any guarantee that we will get that money in future? If we violate a contract we will not be helping the farmers but working against their interest. If we were to do what we are told by some Deputies "to stand by our own people" we would not in the end be standing by the farmers but in reality working against them. I supported the subsidy for this factory with some reluctance mainly because it was an experiment in industrial production on a large scale in this country. It was also an experiment which would help agriculture. I am sorry to say that the developments which have taken place have not improved my views on the question of subsidies. We have the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party saying that we should subsidise the production of sugar to meet the requirements of the country. To my mind it is an extraordinary thing that such a policy should be seriously propounded in the Dáil. At present for a subsidy of £3,000,000 we are producing about one-sixth of our sugar requirements. If we are to produce our total sugar requirements under similar conditions it will mean an expenditure of nearly £18,000,000. There would also be a wheat subsidy of £4,000,000 per year.

Where is this money to come from? That is the mystery to me. It means to a large extent that the non-beet growing farmers would be paying the beet growing farmers the subsidy which they are getting. I was more than pleased when I heard the Minister's statement to-day because all my sympathies are with the growers. I believe they have the right in this quarrel and I believe that any support that we can give them within the terms of the contract ought to be given to them. The Minister was not specific in his statement as to what would be done. Probably he was wise. It seems to me that there are considerations which must affect this factory besides the actual contract. Public opinion must affect the factory and it is dead against it. It cannot hope to go on producing in this country with public opinion up against it. I do not think that there is anybody in support of the offer which the factory made and it is not going to be a paying proposition for that factory to go on producing for the next three years or if it intends to go on producing after the present contract expires.

Other questions must and will arise if the factory are prepared to go on; they must keep in touch with the Government on other questions as time goes on. The Government I think ought to make it clear to the factory people and we as Deputies speaking on behalf of the Government ought to make it clear that inside the terms of that contract if there is anything the Government can do to help the beet growers they will do it. There has been a great deal of capital made out of this question of the difference in the amount of the subsidy paid to the English factories as compared with the subsidy paid to the Irish factory. We have the Minister's figures that the total amount of the subsidy is less than the amount paid to similar English factories. That is contradicted by Deputy Ryan. But they can be examined and I am certain the Minister's figures will bear the closest examination, but that does not now arise. It is not of vital importance whether a bargain could have been made for a less amount or not. The only matter of vital importance is the question of the sacredness of the contract. If we refuse to give our vote for the Estimate we will be violating a contract made by the State. We will be besmirching our national honour. I am not prepared to stand over that, however popular it may be with the beet growers and farmers of this country.

Mr. Corry

We wondered when we heard the argument put up by Deputy Hassett and Deputy Heffernan what they intended doing on this Vote. We heard complaints here on Friday last and again to-day about outsiders interfering and the damage that they were doing. But the damage will be done here in this Dáil this evening if this Dáil passes £162,500 for those very clever gentlemen who having got the best end of the stick are now using it against the farming community. If they are going to get £162,500 out of the farmers' own pockets they can certainly carry on. That big stick that the late leader of the Farmers' Party brought forward—public opinion—bears very lightly on a man who has got £162,500 of the people's money in his pocket. I think Deputy Heffernan, the Parliamentary Secretary, is a very good example of that because the public opinion of the farmers of the country was borne very lightly by Deputy Heffernan in the last four years. That to my mind is the straight question that Deputies have to ask themselves. If they pass £162,500 for the Belgians then once and for all they are preventing any settlement and it is no use saying that we hope for negotiations. The negotiations are finished once those gentlemen get the cash in their pockets.

We heard any amount of different assurances down in Kildare at the election time as to the negotiations that were going on and how the whole thing was going to be settled. A very striking instance of how the whole thing is being settled was reported last week in the High Court. That is the manner in which the Belgians are going to settle it. Yet we had Deputy Heffernan claiming credit for the great bargain that was made. He helped, he said, to put an industry going on a guaranteed subsidy for ten years. This whole beet growing was in the nature of an experiment. One would think that when you were starting an experiment that you would at least protect everybody concerned, especially when the money is coming out of the people's pockets. But what happened? The Belgian is protected for ten years and the farmer for three. That is the bargain. That is the arrangement that was made. The farming community who, after all, should be our first care, were protected for three years while the Belgian gets protection for ten and then we are told that we cannot interfere.

We have seen here Bills brought in to subsidise men who were fined in the courts. Special legislation was brought in to pay their fines. Money was passed to pay the fines of men who were convicted of assault, but we cannot find any means of bringing in legislation to protect the farming community. I wonder why some retrospective legislation would not be brought in to deal with this case. I think it is a case that would need it. We had Deputy Hassett bewailing the fact that there was a good price for grain in 1924. The prices for grain and barley were going down, but we in Cork had to put up with a bad price for grain ever since and we got no protection. Now, apparently, the price for beet is going to go down, and the farmers who cannot grow beet at the price that is being offered are asked to pay £162,500 to the Belgians for the pleasure of looking at the factory rusting in Carlow. Surely there is only one remedy. We have any amount of sympathy with the foreigners. You must be a foreigner to get anything in this country. You need only go to Copenhagen to-day. There we have, representing the Department of Agriculture, two Englishmen and a Dane at the World's Dairy Congress.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will get another opportunity of dealing with that; he has got to deal with the Beet Sugar Vote now.

Mr. Corry

I will be delighted to get an opportunity of dealing with it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must deal with this Estimate.

Mr. Corry

It is a rather amazing condition of affairs. We had Deputy Heffernan telling us that he was one of those who brought in the proposal, and at the same time he complains that if we brought in a proposal for the whole country we would be taking £18,000,000 out of the people's pockets. He claims credit for taking £3,000,000 but it is a very bad thing if we suggest doing it. This intellectual gentleman also claims credit for the Landlord's Land Bill of 1923, that increased the rent of farmers ten per cent. and fifteen per cent. down the country. Of course it would be a very bad thing for him if that was remedied. Ever since he and his so-called Party have consistently voted against any attempt to remedy it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must get away from the Land Bill and keep to the Estimate.

Mr. Corry

Of course that is the position of affairs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must deal with the amendment.

Mr. Corry

I am only dealing with the matters Deputy Heffernan dealt with, and he was quite in order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy will keep in order he will be allowed to speak, not otherwise.

Mr. Corry

He will keep very much in order, but not too much in order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will keep in order when he is told to do so.

Mr. Corry

When we heard the claims put forward to-day by those who had some responsibility for forming the Association which is now before the High Court, we expected to hear some suggestion from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who is the great leader of the Farmers' Party and who, if he had been here instead of being out in France in 1918, I am sure would have put Dan Breen in the shade. We were waiting to hear some suggestion from him as to what was going to be done to remedy the thing. A bargain is a bargain, we were told. If we are going to be held to all the so-called bargains that have been made since 1922, if the unfortunate farmers of this country are going to be held to the bargain which the so-called Farmers' Party made for them, I do not know where we are going to be. They made a very good bargain for themselves but a very bad bargain for those they pretended to represent. The less said about these bargains the better. If the President is in earnest in suggesting that he is going to do something to relieve this position let him bring in some legislation to take portion at least of this £162,500 and guarantee a price to the farmers for their produce. The least the farmer may expect is a fair price for what he grows, if the Belgian is to get £162,500. If necessary, I say, take over this concern altogether from them. Pay them off and take it over. We need not be afraid that we are going to interfere with industries started here. As far as industries started here are concerned they are all on a lop-sided basis, as far as I can see.

Comments were made here by the Minister for Agriculture about protecting prices and everything else. If instead of the policy which has been pursued here by the Executive Council, the policy of putting on tariffs not for the purpose of helping industry but with the two eyes fixed keenly to see how much could be got out of the tariff for revenue purposes, if instead of that they put on a prohibitive tariff and saw that there was no profiteering carried on in the tariffed article it would be more in their line and better for the country. The Government should see that the farmers would get a proper price for their beet and also see that no profiteering is permitted on the part of the Belgians. In that way the farmers would be protected in their business. The farmer surely has as much claim as any Belgian. If the Government were a proper Government they would say that their first duty is to the farmer, and they would say "we will look after our own first." I only hope that an early General Election will rid us of one eye-sore in this House, the Deputy who is misrepresenting the so-called Farmers' Party.

Mr. Byrne

I think it is very regrettable that the debate has resolved itself into an attempt on the part of the beet growers to extract as much money as they possibly can from the general taxpayers. We have heard in this debate a great deal about the interests of the beet growers and the Beet Growers' Association. I have been very credibly informed that the present executive of the Beet Growers' Association are not representative of the main body of the beet growers at all. I understand there are 16,000 beet growers in the country, four-fifths of them growing from one to four acres, some of them only 1 acre and I understand that the gentlemen of the executive of the Beet Growers' Association are large farmers and are not in reality entitled to speak for the beet growers at all. It has been stated in this debate that everything should be done for the farmers but nothing at all for the general taxpayers.

Dr. Ryan

They are the same people.

Mr. Byrne

What benefit are the people of Dublin and the people of Cork going to get out of this subsidy?

Mr. Corry

Will Deputy Byrne vote for it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry must not interrupt the Deputy.

Mr. Byrne

I have heard Deputy Ryan tell us that the subsidising of the Carlow factory is costing £100,000 more than is paid as subsidy to a similar factory in England.

Dr. Ryan

That is quite true.

Mr. Byrne

I wonder did Deputy Ryan ever trouble to get the figures. If he went to the Department of Agriculture——

Dr. Ryan

What Department of Agriculture?

Mr. Byrne

—and got the figures he would find that that statement of his could not possibly be substantiated. Now I have the figures here, and the figures for 1926-27 show that in England the subsidy was 26/9 as against 24/6 in the Free State. In 1927-28 the Irish subsidy was 24/6, and there was paid to the English factory 26/9. In 1928 the English subsidy was 26/9 also, and the Irish subsidy 24/6. If you come to 1929-30 you find that the Irish subsidy is 22/6, and in England it is 20/10. If we go further and analyse the figures we find that the subsidy paid in 1929-30, that this subsidy of 22/6 only amounted, taking the average on the whole production of sugar, to 16/11, as against the figure of 20/10 paid in England. One would have thought that a man in the position of Deputy Ryan, who could have got those figures so easily, would have taken the trouble to get the correct figures.

Dr. Ryan

I was quoting the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Byrne

I am giving you the official figures. These figures are available to Deputy Ryan as well as to me. The Deputy is in the same position to get those figures as I am. In the face of those figures the statement made by the Deputy to-day in this debate should never have been put forward by him as a responsible Deputy.

Dr. Ryan

It is quite true for the present year.

Mr. Byrne

I have the figures here.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is only living in the past.

Mr. Byrne

I am living so much in the present that I am going into the Division Lobby to vote for this subsidy because I stand for the industrial development of this country. I notice here that when a Deputy has anything to say by way of refutation of figures, that in some parts of the House it is thought well to get over his case, and to get rid of him and his facts by interruption. If Deputy Ryan thinks that interruptions will serve his case he is welcome to these interruptions. In the course of this debate not a single word has been said in favour of the beet sugar factory, or of the men who established it.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister said it.

Mr. Byrne

Not a single word has been said about the tactics that have been used in order to close down that factory. There has not been a single word said about the injunction obtained in the High Court the other day. Let the beet growers take control of the factory, the same as they have control of the production of the crop. And what would be the outcome?

Dr. Ryan

Is that case sub judice?

Mr. Byrne

It has been heard, but not quite finished, and I am entitled to refer to it, and to refer to the common knowledge. I am also entitled to refer to the fact that there was a seizure at Durrow of the beet by armed men. I want now to ask the Opposition were these proper tactics for dealing with a new industry which has just been started in this country? If we would wish to have any sympathy in the matter of the difficulties that exist between the beet growers and the factory we should be more careful not to say anything that would increase these difficulties with which the Government are faced at present in this matter. I have listened in this House since 1927 to pleas made by all sections in this House for the development of industry. Yet here we have a new industry established, of which we should all be proud, and what do we find here? The position is, that Deputies on every side of the House, even here on the Government side, and especially Deputies on the Opposition side, join in the attempt to tear it to pieces. We have them wanting to tear to pieces an industry of which we should all be proud. If you want the elimination of this industry, or the destruction of this industry the tactics of those Deputies are the things that will bring that about.

What is the only criticism levelled against the industry and levelled against the success which the industry has obtained in a short time? I have listened here to farmers asking to take over this beet sugar undertaking as a co-operative concern, and I asked myself what is to happen to the beet sugar subsidy? If it were to be handed over to the farmers we all know what would happen to it—what happened to the co-operative societies?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy thinks the farmers are not fit to run it?

Mr. Byrne

This House is asked to find the sum of £162,500 by way of a subsidy. I wonder if we were now in a position similar to the position in England in the case of the beet sugar factories there what criticism would be levelled in this House? I see here that the main criticism against this factory is that it has been worked successfully from the beginning. We have been asked to repudiate the contract with the great firm that invested £400,000, but the men in Ireland who had money in their pockets were afraid to put a single £1 in this industry.

Mr. Allen

Who asked them?

Mr. Byrne

They were asked time and again. When the repudiation was suggested Deputy Ryan was present. If we repudiate this contract I wonder what would be the position as regards the development of industry in the future in this country? What foreign capital will come in? What Ford or Lever will come in to invest money in this State if this State does not stand for the sanctity of contracts? This Vote concerns the credit of the State. We have heard a good deal about the doctrine of repudiation. We have heard about the repudiation of the National Loan; then we had talk of the repudiation of land annuities, and now members opposite want repudiation of the sugar beet contract. I say here and now that repudiation means non-progress and annihilation of the credit of the State. What would be the position here if the beet sugar factory were in the same position financially as similar factories in England? Do the Deputies know what happened there? Do any of the Deputies know of the state of affairs in the beet sugar factories in England? If we had the same position here what criticism would come from the opposite side of the House? What criticism would be levelled at the Minister if the position existed here that existed across the Channel? Anybody who knows about the beet industry in England knows that in the case of a factory set up at Norwich there was a capital loss of £350,000. And yet Deputy Ryan stands up here and tells us that the subsidy here is costing us £100,000 more than the subsidy to a similar factory in England.

Why did not the Deputy consider the loss with which the English factories are being faced? Would not that have been a reasonable thing to consider? The Deputy should have looked up the facts connected with the initial stages of the industry in England. I wonder in such a case would Deputy Ryan think that the subsidy that we have paid was a dead loss to the State. Not only had the English growers had this experience in Norwich but they had similar experience in other parts of the country. A sum of £400,000 was invested in Carlow, and in a similar industry in England every penny of their investment was lost. We have heard talk here about a couple of million pounds for the setting up of this industry which is a huge success, and it is criticised because it is a success. As much as thirty million pounds has been given in eight or nine years as a subsidy in England by the State in addition to the capital losses there in the industry.

Dr. Ryan

That is worse than the Great War.

Mr. Byrne

It only shows that the industry must be a valuable industry when the people there are prepared to make those sacrifices. If we had any appreciation of the value we would not hesitate to make the sacrifice of voting this £162,500. Deputy Ryan gets up and says that this factory is costing us £100,000 more than the subsidy given to a similar factory in England.

Dr. Ryan

I say again that that is true.

Mr. Byrne

That statement, whether made in ignorance or with deliberation, was as untrue a statement as was ever made in this House.

I heard Deputy Heffernan say that the establishment of factories in this country to deal with all the domestic needs of the State would involve an expenditure of £18,000,000. A more absurd statement could not be made. When one examines the question of subsidy and deals with the intricate question of protection, one has got to look at the ramifications of that question—its gains and losses. If anyone who stands for industrial development in this State says that this expenditure of £162,000 is a bad bargain by the Minister for Agriculture for industrial development here, the only thing I can say in reply is that he does not know what he is talking about.

I wonder if I might examine the reactions of this particular subsidy upon the beet sugar industry here. It is easy to say that we are paying out £162,000 of the taxpayers' money. We should also ask, what is the taxpayer getting in return for the £162,000? Is it a good bargain or a bad bargain for the State? The Minister said that it was one of the best bargains made by this country. I unhesitatingly say, with some knowledge of the ramifications of protection, that a better bargain could not possibly be made under the conditions existing when that bargain was made. I do not want to refer to the Civil War, but we all know that the industry was set up in the midst of a civil war and that those people had the courage to come in and invest £400,000 when the factory might never have been permitted to work and the machinery might have been destroyed. Deputy Ryan has never examined what the reactions of this £162,000 amount to.

The great dilemma I find myself in when listening to a debate here on protection, is that those who speak upon the subject of protection know very little about it. The Labour Party appear very reluctant, but both the great Parties in this House have committed themselves to a policy of protection. Let me examine for a moment what that policy means in connection with this Vote of £162,000. Is it in the national interests that we should pay this subsidy, or is it in the national interests that we should withhold the money? If the Dáil does not vote this money it means that that £162,000 will not be forthcoming and that we stand as repudiating a contract entered into with this factory. Is the payment of this £162,000 in the interest of the State? I challenge contradiction when I say that it is the best bargain that this House has ever voted money for. What does it mean? It means a reduction of £22,000 or £23,000 in the import of sugar into this country which amounts to something like £460,000. It means £40,000 in wages paid by the factory to workers. Yet, Deputy Davin wants to destroy an industry that pays wages amounting to the huge sum of £40,000 per year. It means that there is something like £60,000 odd paid in freights to the Irish railways.

In boxes and cloths manufactured by Irish manufacturers, mainly at Clara, it means something like £13,800, and in limestone and by-products, £3,600. The grand total amounts to £595,000 in annual circulation in this country. Does any business man realise, in a country with such a restricted circulation as we have, what the annual circulation of £595,000 means not alone to farmers, but to business men and every other section of the community? We are asked by the official Opposition not to pass the Vote because the factory has refused to permit the beet growers to dictate the price it shall pay for the raw material. Does any business man realise what that proposition means? Does any business man think that an industry could be carried on if the producers of the raw material were to dictate the price that should be paid for the raw material? Could anybody visualise that it would be possible to carry on any industry under conditions of that kind? Another wild statement has been made by Deputy Derrig, who stated that compulsion had been applied to the British factories. There is not a single word of truth in that statement.

Dr. Ryan

There is.

Mr. Byrne

There is not one word of truth in it. What happened? An offer of 35s. was made by the English beet factories to the English growers and the beet growers said they could not produce beet at 35s. An examination of the books of the factories revealed that they could not pay a higher price than 35s. Then the British Government got both parties to meet and agreed to give a further subsidy of 1s. 3d. provided that subsidy went directly to the growers.

Dr. Ryan

Is not that compulsion?

Mr. Byrne

There was no compulsion. Does Deputy Ryan realise that there can be no compulsion for a private concern without legislation? Was there any legislation? The ignorance of the official Opposition is absolutely astounding.

Dr. Ryan

You ought to join us.

Mr. Byrne

This debate has at least done one thing, it has cleared the air and let us know where we stand. It will enable us to sift the wheat from the chaff, and I think that when the chaff is sifted from the arguments of the official Opposition there will be very little wheat left. If the English beet factories could only pay on an examination of their books, 35/-, what justification is there for the assumption that has been made in this House, without the production of a single fact to support it, that the Irish factory could pay 41/-?

Dr. Ryan

Because it is getting £100,000 more.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister made the fairest possible statement of the case that could be made. He said he considered the factory did not act fairly towards the farmer. That is the summing up of the whole case. When I hear Deputies lay down 41/- or 42/- as the price that the factory should pay for beet, I say they know nothing about the subject. I should like to ask one question of the farming interests in this House. If the English farmer, who is under much higher working expenses, who does not own his land, and whose overhead costs are much higher than those of the Irish farmer, could produce beet this year for 35/- surely the Irish farmer should have been able to do likewise for one year until the factory has got over the tremendous slump in the price of sugar. I have never heard one single word addressed by the official Opposition to the fall in the price of sugar. What is the controlling factor in the whole situation? The price of sugar. The price of sugar controls the factory and controls the beet growers. If the growers want to close their eyes to the existence of a salient, preponderating economic fact of that nature, it is only fair and reasonable that that fallacy should be exposed. I am one of those who honestly believe that the best day's business this Dáil could do would be to set up the four other factories which this country requires for the production of the industrial and domestic sugar needs of this State. I am one of those who believe that the Minister has made a good bargain. I am one of those who agreed with the Minister when he said—Deputy Ryan endeavoured to misrepresent the meaning of his words—that the State could not afford to set up four other factories upon the same terms that this particular factory, in its experimental stage, had been set up. I represent people who are contributors to this £162,000 and who do not get one single penny directly in return.

Dr. Ryan

Why do they not grow beet?

Mr. Byrne

I expected nothing but a silly question like that from Deputy Ryan. We are not going to grow beet on the streets of Dublin. I urge the Minister for Agriculture to hold fast to the conviction he holds that he has made a good bargain for the State, and I would ask him not to be discouraged in the setting up of further factories in the State. If the few big men who have control of the Beet Growers' Association are at present in power, they will not be always in power, and the small beet growers will have an opportunity of voicing their rights and their privileges. The whole acid test of the efficiency of this industry, to anybody who knows anything about it is easily ascertained. The farmers here allege that they have a very great grievance, that they have received unfair and inequitable treatment at the hands of the Government. They allege that the prices paid for beet are inequitable, and that the prices are under the cost of production. I do not want to say one hurtful word about the great industry of agriculture. I know the value of that industry to the State, and I realise that if the industry goes down, the State goes down with it. But there are limits to the ability of the taxpayers to pay and there must be also limits to the demands which the beet growers and the farmers make upon the remaining taxpayers. This is a highly competitive industry, and it cannot exist in any country without a subsidy. Although I have seen statements in the official organ of Fianna Fáil that at the end of a certain period the subsidy must cease, I unhesitatingly state that this industry cannot exist without a subsidy, and I say that the £162,000, as I have proved from the figures I have quoted, is well spent money in the interests of the State. What is the price paid for beet in other countries? Can Deputy Ryan answer that?

Dr. Ryan

Thirty-eight shillings in England.

Mr. Byrne

What is paid in other countries?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know the rates of exchanges.

Mr. Byrne

He knows nothing about it. He is simply displaying his ignorance.

Mr. Clery

What are you here for?

Mr. Byrne

To inflict a lesson upon Deputy Clery that he has never forgotten. In the present year 38/- was paid in England. The Irish farmers say they could not grow it for that. In France 30/- is paid, and in Czecho Slovakia 22/6.

Dr. Ryan

What is the exchange rate?

Mr. Byrne

Never mind the exchange rate. I worked it out in our own current coin of the realm, according to the British exchange, or the Irish exchange, if you wish. We were told that the Irish farmers are not getting a fair crack of the whip. There never was a grosser mistake made. I cannot understand how, when the Irish farmer was getting 51/-, beet could be grown in Czecho Slovakia at 22/6d.

Mr. Davin

Search your memory.

Mr. Byrne

There is an offer of 38/- this year, and they refused to do it for that. The Frenchmen have to do it for 30/-, and the English farmers for 38/-, and the Irish farmers cannot do it.

Mr. Corry

They ought to buy Shamrock shovels.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Byrne ought to be given an opportunity of making his speech.

Dr. Ryan

He should make his speech then, and not be asking questions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy knows well the sort of questions to ask.

Mr. Byrne

I am sorry Deputy Ryan takes the little bit of education I have been in a position to impart to him so badly. Deputy Davin is not so boisterous. I think that in the interests of the State Deputy Ryan should avail himself of the benefit of the information with which I am in a position to supply him. Anyone who knows about this industry knows that in Czecho Slovakia the price paid for beet is 22s. 6d.

Mr. Allen

Per what?

Mr. Byrne

The Deputy knows that as well as I do. They have 170 factories in Czecho Slovakia and we have only one here. As I have said the true test of the efficiency or inefficiency in this country can be found out by asking oneself one question: What price has the consumer to pay? The Irish consumer has to pay 3d. In Czecho Slovakia he has to pay 6d. Yet in Czecho Slovakia they can dump surplus sugar f.o.b. at Hamburg at 7s. 9d. The fact of the matter is that Deputy Ryan and his colleagues know nothing about it. If I compared what our Government has done for the Irish farmers and what is being done by the Government of the greatest sugar producing country in Europe I find that in the year 1929—the latest figures available— the price paid in Czecho Slovakia for beet per ton was 22s. 6d., the price of sugar was 38s. and the subsidy 17s. In the Saorstát the price was 51s. for beet, for sugar 21s. 6d. and the subsidy was 22s. in 1929. But in 1929 the Irish output was 20,500 odd tons and only 10,000 tons received the 22s. subsidy so that the subsidy in fact worked out the average to about 17s. Yet Deputy Ryan and Deputy Davin think that this is a scandalous bargain entered into by the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Davin

You have gone mad on figures.

Mr. Byrne

Figures are terribly stubborn things, especially for Deputy Davin who never goes to the trouble of inquiring into them. All that he is concerned with is making an attack on the Government and the factory they have established so successfully in the country. I want to pay a tribute to that factory. It has been one of the most marvellous successes. The figures of losses which I have quoted in England—£350,000 in one factory; £400,000 in another—go to show that from the inception of the industry while we made a financial success of it, the English taxpayer had to find all these mil- lions to keep the industry on its feet. £30,000,000 is the sum. I want to ask the House not to be led away even if a few members on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches are discontented with the present position of the beet industry in the country. Anyone who knows anything about this industry will only be too anxious for the maintenance, not of a single factory, but for the setting up of the other four or five factories on the same lines as working in Denmark. What the Dane has done the Irishman can do. We proved our success in the experimental stages of this industry, and I hope that we shall see not merely one factory but four or five factories erected in Ireland. I have heard from farmer Deputies in this House that their constituents in beet. I believe the beet crop could be different areas were anxious to grow produced at 38s. per cwt. to meet all needs but for the boycott the Association placed upon the production of beet.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy ought not to go into that.

Dr. Ryan

We know farmers who would agree to grow beet at 38/- per cwt.

Mr. Byrne

And it would not be under the cost of production—I mean 38/- per ton. I want simply to say in conclusion that there has been no sound argument put forward by the Opposition to show that this subsidy should not be paid. I say that if we repudiate this contract and refuse to pass this Vote of £162,000 we will have done the worst day's work which the Dáil ever set out upon. I hope that we will see another four or five factories set up in this country very soon. On the figures as I have analysed them I have shown that the effect of this Vote of £162,000 is to put in annual circulation in this country the sum of £595,000, which are figures over which any Government can stand and be proud of.

Mr. Coburn

So much has been said upon this question that I do not intend to take up the time of the House for very long. But as one who is anxious that this dispute should be settled I was rather pained listening to the unfortunate speech which has just been delivered by Deputy Byrne, in which he thought fit to condemn what in my opinion is the most respectable body of men to be found within the State, that is the members of the Beet Growers' Association. It is an old maxim that when you have two parties to a dispute it is very unwise to rile either of them. We in this House want in the best possible interests of the country to have a fair settlement of this unfortunate dispute. Deputy Byrne, if I heard his speech aright, has done a bad day's work in this matter. He has postponed for a much longer period the settlement which the Minister for Agriculture gave the House to understand was in sight.

There are one or two aspects in connection with the growing of beet affecting the constituency I represent which, perhaps, the Deputies might not be aware of. One of the most important things to be noted for us in Louth, which is a considerable distance from the factory, is that the growers of beet in that county have to pay at least 7/- or 8/- per ton by way of freight, so that the average price they receive per ton is somewhere in the region of 32/- or 30/- per ton, and not 38/-. Again, when this factory was established, and I may say that I gave full credit to the Government for what they did, many farmers in Louth, in response to the call sent out by the Government, rallied to the support of the Carlow factory by growing beet in answer to that call. One very large farmer in that county, of the class whom Deputy Byrne has thought fit to condemn, changed his mode of farming, and for the past four or five years has grown many acres of beet. The point I want to make is this, that one of the primary objects of establishing the factory in Carlow which the Government had in view was to produce what was much needed, namely, employment. This particular farmer whom I have spoken of, as a result of the growing of beet, was in the position to give employment to at least forty or fifty men. That is an aspect of the subject that should not be lost sight of by Deputy Byrne when he spoke, as he did, in a very unfair way of the members of the Beet Growers' Association. While 38/- may do certain farmers, who farm with the aid of their own families, and can sow the beet with the aid of such labour, and when the time arises when the beet has to be reaped, can employ the members of their own family at this particular work, one can easily understand the position of the large farmers, who have to employ a number of hands to do the work. As everybody knows, the labourer is worthy of his hire, and farmers have to pay these labourers wages. We can very easily see that, although 38/- may—and I do not agree that it does—pay even the small farmer, by no stretch of the imagination can it pay the type of farmer to whom I have referred.

It was often said in the Dáil that nothing should be done for the larger farmer. We heard a great deal of talk about the small farmer and the small employer, but it is the big farmer and the big employer that this country is in need of, and if you put these big farmers and these large employers of labour out of business you are going to create more unemployment. It should be borne in mind by the Government when approaching this question that those men have loyally answered the call, and grown beet, and thereby given much needed employment in their respective districts.

Deputy Davin's motion is that this matter be referred back for reconsideration. As one who is a member of the smallest Party in this House, I am anxious that some settlement should be arrived at, and I appeal to Deputy Davin and to the Opposition that, in the best interests of the country, and after having elicited this discussion, they should come to some agreement with the Government whereby a speedy end will be put to this dispute.

The Minister as I stated has already hinted in his speech this afternoon that he had good ground for believing that there will be a settlement in the near future. Therefore, it would be no good to refer this Vote back. It would not speed up, by one hour, the settlement. The Opposition, the Labour Party and Deputies on the Government Benches have had an opportunity of expressing their views. Having done so I think the proper course now would be for Deputy Davin to withdraw the motion. Whoever speaks for the Government before the debate ends should give some indication to the House that no time will be lost in bringing the parties in the dispute together and if possible effecting a settlement. I believe a settlement can be effected if common sense prevails. I am against strikes in any shape or form, and this is a sort of strike against the factory, if I may put it that way. In my opinion there is this advantage that it is a policy pursued by a section of the community who do not want to be in their present position and who are anxious at the earliest possible moment to be relieved of that position. I do ask Deputy Davin and the members of the Labour Party and the official Opposition to withdraw the motion. I have no doubt that they will secure the object they have in view, and that we all have in view, as speedily as if there was a vote taken against this motion. Moreover, it does not follow even if that Vote were carried that the sum of £162,000 would not be greatly affected. It would. Governments, like individuals, can be brought to the courts and, while I am not a lawyer, I think it is commonsense to say that it would be within the power of the owners of the beet sugar factory to bring this Government to the courts and to recover that £160,000. If the Vote is referred back or if the amount is reduced by the House it does not follow that those who are running the factory could not recover that amount by law. Taking everything into consideration, that this is a very important industry, that depression is prevalent, not only here, but in all other countries, it is absolutely incumbent on all parties to the dispute to come together. I am sure it will be possible for the Minister for Agriculture, acting on behalf of the Government, the directors on behalf of the factory, and a representative of the Beet Growers' Association, to come to an arrangement that will be satisfactory.

Mr. Allen

I wish to contradict the statement made by Deputy Byrne that the organisation did not represent the Beet Growers' Association. I can say that 100 per cent. of the beet growers were members of the organisation last year, that 64 per cent. are shareholders in the association and that the other 36 per cent. are subscribers. Deputy Byrne's statement that the beet growers' organisation did not represent them is not true. The Deputy also stated that the executive was not elected but set themselves up. The beet growers' executive is elected by the members on a most democratic basis, and that executive represents the association in the same way as Deputies represent their constituents. Deputy Heffernan spoke about the sacredness of agreements and about besmirching the national honour if they were repudiated. No Deputy on this side suggested that the agreement should be repudiated. Deputy de Valera suggested that the unexpended surplus after paying for the beet that was grown should be given to those who did not grow beet this year. It is not besmirching the national honour to spend money on people who are suffering this year. Deputy Byrne made capital out of the fact that farmers in England are growing beet at 38/- a ton, and said that the Irish farmers refused to do so. One reason why the Irish farmers refused to grow beet at 38/- a ton was that they did not see why they should suffer the whole cut while the factory suffered none. In England, the Government is not allowing the factory to make any profit, to pay any dividend or to put anything towards depreciation. Here in Ireland the factory wants to pay the usual dividends and directors' fees and to put one-tenth of the capital away for depreciation. That is one reason why the farmers did not grow beet this year. Another reason was that it would not pay to grow beet at 38/- a ton. There is no doubt about that. Every farmer who understands the growing of cereals and root crops knows that beet could not be grown for 38/- a ton. Deputy Byrne suggested that farmers who had the help of their own families could grow it and that that would be economic. Certainly the labour of farmers who have families of sons and daughters should be worth as much as that of agricultural labourers, whose wages are small enough. At least, these people should be paid that much for their labour. I only hope that while the factory is offering such a low price for beet not a single farmer will be found to grow it next year.

Mr. Harris

After listening to Deputies on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches, I gathered that most of them agreed that the beet growers were not fairly treated by the factory people. With the exception of Deputy Byrne, they all agreed that the factory could have given a better price for beet, but they all said they would vote against the amendment. They said as this was a contract the money should be paid. I think Deputies should remember that the farmers have suffered an injustice, and that owing to the beet war they will not be able to pay their annuities. There are many now idle who would have found employment thinning, hoeing, and working on the beet crop. Some provision should be made for these people. A few days ago I asked the Minister for Local Government what provision was going to be made for those who are unemployed owing to the beet crux, and the reply I received was that that was a matter for the boards of health. I think it is hardly fair that local bodies should have to shoulder the burden that will be put upon them in the shape of extra rates owing to the beet crux. I find it very hard to understand how any Deputy could vote this subsidy until he knew the terms of settlement. We have been told that a settlement is in view. That sounds like the election promises we heard which were broken. We were told what would happen, but these things did not come to pass afterwards. Deputy Gorey spoke about the credit of the State. I do not know what the credit of the State is abroad, as I have not been abroad, but I think the fact of my being here shows that its credit is very low at home. A promise was made by a high official in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party that if the result of the recent election went against the Government they would go to the country, and that they would take it as an indication that they had lost the confidence of the country. I think they have lost the confidence of the country, and that the beet question had a lot to do with it.

The President

I think it is fairly obvious from all we have heard in the discussion since it started, that it has been more concerned with vote-catching and electioneering than with sound business. When this factory was started in the first instance, it was not with a view to vote-catching. It was to do a particularly necessary and helpful act towards the agricultural industry. In order to do that a very big sum was imposed on the taxpayer each year. For the ten years it amounted to something like £3,878,580, or one might say, in round figures, practically £4,000,000 of money. The taxpayers of the country are entitled to inquire how that money was spent, whether it has effected its purpose. In connection with effecting the purpose that was in the mind of the Minister and of the Oireachtas at the time the industry was started, it is fairly clear that the success of the whole industry, the success of beet growing, the manufacture of sugar, and of the factory, was the main consideration.

Quite a number of speakers when dealing with the matter, started out with the idea that to show their interest in the growers they had to show hostility to the factory. It is obvious that they are unaccustomed to business methods, or unaccustomed to the exercise of administration or authority, and that they are not likely after the words of wisdom that have come from these benches, to improve until they get older, and gain a little more experience. Taking the first four years in respect of which complete figures are available, the facts—and they are different from arguments—are that 55 per cent. was paid in dividends —15 per cent. for each of three years, and ten per cent. one year—approximately £220,000; £208,000 was written off, and there was something like £65,000 placed in reserve, making a total of £493,000. I expect these figures will be admitted. If there is any question about them I will go through them one after the other in order to clear up the matter. That is what the shareholders of the factory were entitled to out of the first four years working. There were directors' fees paid to the extent of £12,000, making a total of £506,000. In addition to the general reserve fund there was on 30th June, 1930, a special reserve of £54,000 for taxation of profits, doubtful debts, and stamp duties on share warrants. In all probability there are considerable hidden reserves in these figures. But, as far as the company is concerned, and those partaking of the benefits— the shareholders and so on—we will say that in round figures half a million was paid to them. Who got the other portion of the total sum paid in subsidy or remission of duties over that period, amounting to £1,562,605? Somebody got the remainder. That is what the factory got. That is a very considerable sum, and the taxpayers of this country have put up the whole of it. Listening to the various suggestions that were made for composing these figures, for finding a solution of this problem, I am not surprised that this Government is still in office, and that it is likely to remain in office for a very long time. Deputy de Valera would divide a portion of the subsidy not expended this year among those who were growing beet last year or the year before, or possibly the year before that, back if you like, to the first year beet was grown here.

Did anyone ever hear such a ridiculous or such a senseless proposal? It looks to me like this, that there is a rich man who does not know what to do with his money, and who wants to select some popular method of distributing it. That was not the intention we had in mind when the industry was started. It was started for the specific purpose of seeing whether or not the experiment of manufacturing sugar in this country was likely to be a success. This was a better bargain, as the Minister for Agriculture stated, than the bargain made in England. The mere fact that this year, if the whole of the subsidy were paid, and if the whole of the remission of duty were granted, we would spend £100,000 more than would be spent on a similar factory manufacturing the same quantity of beet, does not affect the issue. It is over the whole period of ten years that we are taking the figures. When Deputy Ryan complained of some figures that he got during the last couple of years, he ought to remember that in taking out the figures the officials take them as they were before them.

Mr. Lemass

And to suit the particular purposes of the Minister.

The President

As it so happened, they did not suit his purpose at the time, because the figures ultimately extracted were much more favourable to us than those given to Deputy Ryan at the time. I leave out of calculation the sum required for a subsidy on molasses. Other than that I was substantially correct, and if Deputy Lemass was even within 50 per cent. as correct in any figures he gives he might thank his stars. His Party may thank the fact that they have been here even for a few years to enable them to get anything like an approximate exactitude in regard to figures.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Lemass would not make a contract like this one without knowing the figures, as evidently the President did.

The President

The figures I have been quoting are the figures paid by the British. They are not our figures. I suppose the Deputy knew the figures paid by the British?

Dr. Ryan

Of course I would before making a contract.

Mr. Hogan (Minister for Agriculture)

Before the beet was grown.

The President

That is just on a par with what the Deputy put before the House. He dealt with the subsidy for this year as if it were paid. The Deputy knows that it is not paid, and he knows that no such figure will be paid.

Dr. Ryan

I do, of course.

The President

Why did not the Deputy say that? Why did he harp on the fact that we were spending £100,000 more than the British?

Dr. Ryan

Why is it being asked?

The President

The Deputy said that simply to delude the public, or perhaps with the idea of impressing them that simply by mentioning figures he was a great man That sort of nonsense is not going to go down in the country. It may delude the people for a while, but ultimately those with common-sense will not accept that kind of nonsense.

Dr. Ryan

We found that out lately.

The President

If I were to make the promise which the Deputies opposite made, what would be the result?

Dr. Ryan

You would never come back.

The President

What would they be like? Criticism has been passed to-day on the Beet Growers' Association. I understand that the arrangement by which the Executive of that body is elected is on a most democratic basis. It is obvious that if we are to get to business in connection with the price of sugar beet, that there ought to be a body to deal with the question on behalf of the growers, and that body should concern itself by seeing, as far as it can, that ordered conditions prevail. It ought not to countenance anything in the nature of sabotage. I do not believe it does. There may be individual cases in which these things might happen, but they are not going to serve a useful purpose, and if Deputies directed themselves to matters of that sort, telling the people the truth and putting before them the necessity of having ordered conditions, it would be very much better.

Mr. Davin

Should the Association be recognised?

The President

Yes.

Mr. Davin

Should they be forced to recognise it?

The President

The less talk about force the better. If we attempt to use force we do it according to the law, but Deputies get up and say that we should not be using force; that we should have pillows in our hands instead of mallets.

Dr. Ryan

Or beet pulp?

The President

Taking a hostile view against the factory is not going to solve the question. The factory directors in my view have not taken a sound common-sense view of the problem this year, and as a consequence I believe that the factory is going to lose money. I believe it will not be a successful year and I believe that the best interests of the factory and the growers would be served by taking the advice of the Minister for Agriculture, and the advice that I have given them. I had hoped that they would accept that advice. I make Deputies opposite a present of all the seats they like to win on it but I am not going to win a single seat in the country on false promises. If people are not satisfied to stand by me in carrying out a bargain that this country—not myself—is committed to by a statute of its own Parliament, then I say let them get someone else to serve them. I will not serve them. The Association and those directing it must remember that the people of this country are putting huge sums into this industry. The directors must remember that the growers are entitled to go into an association and to do legal acts affecting their rights, and that the best interests of all concerned is in meeting and finding how far it is possible to get accommodation on the question of a price. The Association must remember that it is not by uttering hostile comments on the factory that their best interests are going to be served. We stand for this contract as it is.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 70.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colbert, James.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kent, William R.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Leary, William.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.

Níl

• Aird, William P.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Jordan, Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Daly, John.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, William Archer.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:— Ta, Deputies Davin and G. Boland; Níl, Deputies Tierney and P.S. Doyle.

Question declared lost.

Vote put and declared carried.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported.