I ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to apply certain sums out of the Central Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this session of the Oireachtas.
In Committee on Finance. - Appropriation Bill, 1931.—First Stage.
Leave granted. Bill read a first time.
When is it proposed to take the Second Stage?
With the agreement of the House, I propose to ask to have the Second Stage taken now.
I think I will not be out of order if I mention a matter that arises in connection with the debate we had yesterday on the beet-growing subsidy. Much play was made by the Minister for Agriculture when replying about breaking agreements and on the need for honouring the national word. An attempt was made to misrepresent our position and to make it appear that we were suggesting that an agreement which was entered into with the Sugar Manufacturing Company should be broken. At the opening of my speech on that particular subject, I was at pains to make it clear that any proposal coming from our side would not have that effect. With regard to the particular proposal that I put forward, it should be obvious to anyone that doing what I asked should be done in the interests of our own people would not have the effect of breaking any such agreement. The Minister for Agriculture did not at any stage refer to the particular proposition which we put forward, and I would like to know what is his opinion upon it. It is true that one of the Parliamentary Secretaries—Deputy Heffernan—did make some reference to it, and he suggested that our proposal meant the breaking of some contract. I hold that it did not.
The proposition was this: That as the average of the normal subsidy paid for the last three or four years, since the Sugar Manufacturing Company began to operate, would not be needed this year on account of the fact that the factory would not have received as much beet as in former years, the unexpended balance should be made available for the purpose I mentioned. That is that the beet-growers who were prepared to grow beet if an economic price were given them, would not suffer any loss through having to change at the last moment to barley or other cereals. They are going to suffer a very serious loss. There is no doubt about that. The loss will be the price they would have to pay for organising themselves to defend their rightful interests against an unfair advantage which they feel was taken of them by a company that was being subsidised by Irish money. I think we have a duty towards these people, and that we ought to discharge it. The whole purpose of this scheme was to get our farmers to grow beet, to supply a factory which was ultimately to give us a portion of our necessary sugar requirements. They came whilst it was profitable for themselves, no doubt, as co-operators. They co-operated in this national scheme. If we are going to desert them, and if, as a result, they find themselves cut out of growing beet, it is going to mean ultimate damage to any hope of anything useful in a national way coming out of this experiment.
The Minister said that this was an experiment. Taking it as such surely if this sum of money, a sum which, I think, is estimated at £2,000,000, were going to be given and spent on that experiment, we want to see the experiment a success. We do not want to stand idly by and see it wrecked. We have another experiment—the Shannon Scheme—and we, at any rate, see a tremendous danger that through mishandling by the Executive at a critical moment this scheme may be injured. The Sugar Beet Factory is the same kind of experiment. It is a definite experiment and we want to see it made a success. If it is to be a success we want to get our people to grow beet. They will not grow beet unless they get an economic price for it. The way to secure for them an economic price is to put them in a position in which they will be able to put up a fight against the company which has, according to the Minister's own words—I am not quoting his exact words—which he has admitted to be acting at the present time in a way that the figures would not justify. We take it that an unfair advantage is being taken of the beet growers. We take it that it is our duty, giving this money for a certain purpose, to see that an unfair advantage is not taken of them, and the only way that seems practicable, within the bounds that are set by the contract, would be that we should stand by our own people.
The Minister for Agriculture, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was speaking, approved of certain remarks which the Parliamentary Secretary made. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to imply that were we in that way to see that the beet growers, who turned over to growing corn, should not suffer loss, that somehow or other, action of that kind would be breaking the contract, or acting unfairly towards the Sugar Maufacturing Company. I cannot see how the Minister could agree with a statement of that kind. What would we be doing in the matter except seeing that a section of our own people, who are going under present circumstances, to suffer a loss, do not suffer a loss because they have been co-operating and are prepared to co-operate in the national experiment? As I say, I have availed of this opportunity to get from the Minister his views on the matter. It seems to me to be a practical proposal. The only way we can see that an unfair advantage is not taken of our people is to say to them, "Very well; you would not be given an economic price for your beet. You have land prepared to sow beet. You had to turn over to a crop which you would not probably have taken to if you had a choice of letting the land lie fallow or putting some crop into it. You will suffer a loss on this account." We think, as the Minister said, that that they had the equities in this case. Why should not we stand by them and see that they do not suffer a loss, to see to what extent it is practicable to come in and aid them, and see that the loss is not heavier than it need be? That is my position.
I hope I have made it clear that our proposal does not imply breaking the contract, that we have no wish to break the contract. Whatever contracts are made we may dispute, whether they are good or bad, but I have not suggested that we should break them. I do hold, however, that we should stand by our own people and see that they do not suffer a loss, and that the Minister should say to the Sugar Manufacturing Company: "Very well, our opinion is that you could pay this price to our people for beet. They are not prepared to grow beet at the price you offered. It would be uneconomic for them, and we cannot see them suffer the loss that would be imposed upon them, and we will therefore have to come to their aid." The value of that aid would be this, that then the Sugar Manufacturing Company would realise very quickly that they were not going, on account of the circumstances that have been created, to squeeze our people into accepting an uneconomic price.
With reference to the point raised by Deputy de Valera, one of the first things that would have to be determined, if we wanted to do anything of the kind, would be to establish what was a fair price. It would be quite impossible for the Minister to determine what loss the people would have suffered unless he knew, or could determine, what was a fair price for beet. Therefore, the Minister for Agriculture would constitute himself an arbitrator as to what was a fair price for beet.
Exactly.
Moreover, if the Minister for Agriculture determined that all growers were to be compensated for any loss, if the factory did not offer what he thought was a fair price, the position would be that nobody would grow beet, and everybody would claim compensation from the Minister. The position then would be that we would have compulsory arbitration forced on the factory. We would have the Minister determining the price that the factory ought to pay. We would have the Minister offering compensation to everybody who would not take that price. Thereby the Minister would deprive the factory of the possibility of getting beet at any price other than at the price which he would have determined. We would, therefore, have arrived at the position of compulsory arbitration. It seems to me that compulsory arbitration in that form, whether you call it a breach of contract or not, would be morally a breach of contract. It would involve the Minister in creating a situation which was not contemplated in the contract. That is what I say in regard to that.
The matter has another leg. There is no question of patriotism or anything of that kind in this, it is a matter really of business. Would it be said if it happened that the beet growers got a big organisation and refused to grow for any price other than an impossible price for the factory to pay, that we should give the factory the subsidy, even though they made no sugar? I am looking at it now from the Finance point of view. I would not contemplate giving the factory a penny if they did not make sugar, no matter what the causes were that prevented them from making sugar. I do not believe that we should let money flow out of the Exchequer in connection with the beet sugar subsidy for beet that is not given. This is only the beginning of an experiment. This dispute is only one of many disputes. Assume we have the subsidy period ended. Assume we had the factory in any hands you like. There is going to be every year more or less of a dispute between the factory and the growers. You will have the factory saying that beet should be a certain price and you are going to have the farmers saying that that price is not an economic price. I believe myself that instead of ensuring the success of the enterprise by intervention which would force the hands of either side we would prevent the industry ever taking root by doing so.
In these circumstances, while we may use persuasion to try to bring people to a more reasonable frame of mind, what we have really got to do is to let economic factors come into play. There are two sides, one depending on the other. The farmers cannot make a profit out of beet-growing unless the factory can carry on. The factory cannot make a profit unless it can offer a price which will induce the farmers, when all sorts of organisations have been carried on, to grow a sufficient quantity of beet. I think that is how the matter must be regulated. There is no doubt that the factory this year—this is the general opinion of those who have examined the figures—could have paid a greater price than they did. If they had paid a slightly greater price, they would probably have got all the beet they wanted and made a profit. Having overreached themselves by offering a small price, instead of making a profit, they are going to incur a loss. There you have the ordinary economic factors operating. They will have to continue to operate as long as the industry goes on. If we are to start butting in and treating this industry on a basis different from all the other industries of the country, we are going to have not only an impossible position, but, ultimately, to have extraordinary and unnecessary burdens thrown upon the taxpayers elsewhere throughout the country. It was a misfortune that this dispute occurred, but it is a misfortune which, I think, is not without compensations. It certainly serves to bring home to the factory-owners, if it were necessary to bring it home to them more definitely, that the co-operation of the farmers is essential. I have little doubt that negotiations will be resumed, and that the whole question of beet-growing will be settled. I do not think that we can undertake to pay anybody a subsidy for not being able to strike a bargain. It would lead us into all sorts of difficulties. In fact, the proposition is so absurd, it would not have been made but that this matter got a lot of electioneering discussion, which distorted people's views about it.
Most of the Minister's argument was based on future years. I am talking about the loss being incurred in the present year. As the Minister knows, the Sugar Manufacturing Company waited until the last possible moment, expecting thereby that when the farmers had their land prepared, they could force them to take a price which was regarded by the farmers generally as uneconomic. I take it the position is this: we have either to allow our people, who were prepared to co-operate, to suffer, or we have to come to their assistance. As they were prepared to co-operate in this experiment, we should not leave them in the lurch.
I do not think we have a right to force the factory into a position in which they must pay our prices.
There is one aspect of this matter which I do not wish to be entirely forgotten. I should like to say a word on behalf of the taxpayers of the non-beet growing counties. I should like the House to look at the matter from the point of view of the county I myself represent and many other counties which are in the same position. While I do not want to press this aspect of the question—I prefer to look at these matters from the broad national point of view— there is something to be said for the taxpayers of these counties. As I understood Deputy de Valera's argument, there is a vote of £160,000; assuming that only £60,000 goes to the beet factory, what would be left over should go to the people in these particular areas who are suffering a loss this year because of the dispute.
The question of how much of the £100,000 would go— whether it would go in whole or in part—would depend on what would be regarded as fair compensation, so that the farmers of these areas would not suffer a loss.
Mr. O'Connell
So that they would be compensated for the loss they incurred this year because they did not grow beet. I think that farmers in the non-beet growing counties might say: "These beet growers have done fairly well in the last four or five years. During that period we have subsidised them. This year they are making a loss. But we were making a loss ourselves in the last three or four years when they were doing well. The money necessary to enable the beet grower to do well was paid by us and we are finding it difficult enough to struggle on and keep our heads above water." While I do not want to press that point of view, I think it has to be considered. If this sum is not all to go to the factory, the balance which remains will go into the National Exchequer and the ordinary taxpayer throughout the Twenty-Six Counties will have, to that amount, less taxation to pay. It may not be very much but relief in taxation will be afforded to that amount. The ordinary farmer in Mayo, Kerry or Donegal, if this question were put to him, would probably think he had some reason to complain and would say that these beet growers got so much during the last five or six years. I am sure he would complain.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take Third Stage now.
Bill passed through Committee and reported without amendment.
Fourth and Fifth Stages agreed to. Bill certified as a Money Bill.