Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 Jul 1933

Vol. 49 No. 5

Sugar Manufacture Bill, 1933—Second Stage (Resumed).

This is a Bill which I am sure all Parties in the House would like to agree upon, with the idea of having our own sugar produced at home. It is a principle we all accept, but it is a matter that should be discussed very freely and frankly as to whether it is in the best economic interests of the country to endeavour to do so, and, in view of the experience we have got through our experiment in Carlow, whether we are justified in taking such a big step now. The Carlow factory produces about 20,000 tons of sugar. Our total requirements are roughly 100,000 tons. This Bill visualises a development which will enable us to produce the remaining 80,000 tons, making 100,000 tons in all. The Bill, stripped of all its technicalities, means that either as a State concern, or with the backing of the State, the taxpayer is going to be committed to produce this sugar from beet.

Those of us who interested ourselves in, and perhaps to some extent led Government enterprise some years ago to take up experimental sugar production from home-grown beet here, would like to see this venture successful. The misgivings I have about it are that the actions proposed in this Bill are rather precipitate, and might injure a praiseworthy attempt, which, if it were unsuccessful, might sour attempts in the future. The most that the Minister for Finance, in the figures he gave us, contemplates under this Bill is that he hopes we will be able to produce sugar here at £20 a ton. It is a little over that, but for round figures and for purposes of comparison we will call it £20 a ton. Any little criticism I may have to offer on it is not hostile criticism, and I hope the Minister will correct my figures if they are wrong. As I have been able to follow the Minister when he was introducing the Bill, and in the short time I had to devote to a copy of his introductory speech, this is the meaning I take out of it: he hopes at best to be able to produce 80,000 tons of sugar at £20 a ton, or approximately £1,600,000. We can buy that sugar, according to the Minister's figure, for £800,000. Now, as a matter of plain commonsense business, is this House justified in committing the taxpayers of the country to pay £2 per unit of sugar by producing it at home when they can buy that unit of sugar at £1 ready for use? That is really the whole problem.

As regards the experiment which we have made, we have shown that we are able to produce as good beet and as high a yield per acre in this country as in any other country. We are able to produce beet with as high a sugar content in this country as in any other country. Even the experiments that were tried here leading up to the establishment of the Carlow sugar factory gave very satisfactory results, both as regards yield and sugar content. As regards quality production and quantity production we are able to do the job of growing beet as well as any other country in the world, but are we able to produce it as economically? That is another matter, and that is a matter which the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Agriculture—perhaps it is more the province of the Minister for Agriculture—should have explained to this House. As a matter of fact, there are three Ministers concerned, and it is a pity that all three did not speak in an introductory manner on this Bill, so that they could give their contributions from the particular angle of their Departments. I am glad that the Minister for Industry and Commerce on Friday last—it is time we came down to some little commonsense and realities on the subject—put a query which shows that the Government are at least coming to realities. He put a query here—in answer to some question that was thrown at the Minister for Finance I think—what country in the world is producing sugar from beet economically? Of course, that was a question and answer in one. No country in the world is producing it economically, or has ever produced it economically. With the best of countries at this job it is a matter of how little the loss will be, and how best to apply Government help to meet that loss. Those are the two problems in connection with the matter. There is another important point that should be borne in mind in connection with this beet question. I understand that, with our experiments of growing sugar beet in the last few years, we have not been let into the secret of the strain of seed we ought to grow. It is a very dangerous thing, apart from whether it is a paying proposition or not, to commit the country to a big experiment, for that is more or less what it is, of this kind, in which the taxpayers must look forward for a period in which they will have to meet a certain loss. The best the Government can do is to minimise that loss as much as possible, for it would be superhuman to hope to get out of loss altogether.

Now it should occur to the Ministry that without having a good seed you will not have good beet. I venture to say there is not one grain of beet saved in this country. Is it wise, in face of that, that we should go in for the entire production of sugar for ourselves, spend over a million of money on extra plant for sugar refining, and encourage the farmers to grow the necessary quantity of beet without being able to guarantee them, within the shores of this country, one ounce of seed for that job? Further, even if we were producing a seed is it not time that we got further than this?

Beet, I understand, sprang from a discovery of a freak mangold with a very large amount of sugar content. Speaking from long experience of the sugar content of mangolds, I should say it is about 2 or 3 per cent., but in that freak mangold the sugar content was over 7 per cent. The problem of making the production of sugar from beet profitable depends on whether we can get seed that would either increase the yield of mangolds, or the yield of the sugar content in mangolds, or whether with the present yield of mangolds the yield of the sugar content could be increased. There are two fields for investigation by our Faculty of Agriculture in the University, and I think I am right in saying that the matter is really getting no attention whatever. Not only should we save the seed for our own beet crop, and not only should we know the kind of beet, but we should be able to prove experimentally the history of that beet and, where any improvement is shown in the seed, we should know the strain from which that seed is bred so as to help in the investigation and development of seed breeding. Not only do we not raise seed, but we are not doing any laboratory work in connection with the breeding of seed in this country. Every practical farmer knows that foreign seeds introduced here, whether for oats, barley, potatoes, wheat or anything else do not do well until they get acclimatised. They are always better after two or three years' sowing. It is a pity that the same attempt is not made to improve the beet industry in that way.

The Minister made an extraordinary attempt to juggle with the figures. He said that all the people concerned in the industry must cut down their losses or gains. But before I come to these details, I wonder has the Minister for Industry and Commerce thought of any other solution in the development of this industry except on the lines of the Carlow experiment, which has only shown us that we can grow a good quantity and a good quality of beet to produce 20,000 tons of sugar in four years which will cost the taxpayers about £4,000,000. Has he thought of any other method than that? I remember when the experiment in Carlow was being contemplated a few years ago. I knew a celebrated chemist who had a thorough knowledge of the chemistry of sugar refining. He studied the business in England, Germany and the United States. His idea of running the industry here—I do not know whether it is a possible idea or not, but according to him it was—was that we should have factories over the country that would deal with the extraction of the juice from the beet, and then that we should have a central refining factory, say, in Dublin or some other big port, with a good connection of background in the country, while itself open to ocean-borne traffic. His contention was that it would be a very big loss to have £1,000,000 worth of machinery lying idle for nine months of the year. You will have to keep certain people in the industry whether you have work for them or not for the whole 12 months, because it would not make for efficiency if you let them go after three months work which roughly covers the period of the operations for beet. If you had that refining factory in Dublin to deal with the juice extracted from the beet down the country, in centres where beet was grown largely and if that juice was brought to Dublin and refined into sugar, then during the period of the year that you would not have beet juice to refine, sugar cane could be imported and the machinery could be kept going all the year round, diminishing the overhead charges for such refining machinery. If you could keep that going for 12 months, then that machinery would be producing over four times as long as it would be in the work of refining sugar from beet alone. That is one way of reducing the overhead cost and a way which I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce should investigate. It is a way that might not occur to the ordinary person, but I am not giving it as coming from an ordinary person, but as coming from a man who has a first-class knowledge of the sugar refining industry which he studied in various parts of Europe and the United States. He would back his whole reputation on it. I think that idea would be worthy of consideration.

Another experiment was made in connection with sugar juice when extracted from the pulp. I understand it must be worked quickly or it discolours. Some time ago I saw where an Italian scientist discovered some means by which that discolouration could be overcome, the juice being extracted when the crop is gathered, stored in casks and refined throughout the year. I do not know how far that experiment has been successful. The great point about the two suggestions I am making is that if £1,000,000 worth of machinery, working three months, will produce our requirements, then £250,000 worth of refining machinery should be able to produce our requirements in the 12 months. Less machinery would be required and you would have the staff working the whole year. It would make for efficiency. That is with regard to the industrial side.

It is proposed to offer farmers 35/- a ton for beet. The average yield of beet, given by the Minister, is 11 tons to the acre. The Minister mentioned that 20,000 tons of sugar were produced here every year since the experiment started except in the year 1931. I am sure he knows why 1931 was an exception. The price then offered to the farmers was 38/- a ton and they said they could not produce it for that. The Minister shakes his head, but I think he made many eloquent speeches in that area telling the farmers they could not produce beet at 38/- a ton.

Has the Deputy got the quotations?

I have not. I am merely speaking from memory, but I could give the Minister the names of members of his Party who told the people they should not grow it.

That is different.

Name one of them.

The Deputy knows quite well that I am not going to name an outsider in this House. If the Deputy is curious to know, I will give him the names privately.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton is getting very particular.

If there were people in the House here to contradict me, suppose I were wrong, it would be one thing to give their names; but even then I would still hesitate to give the names. Anyhow, the Minister will not deny that a very small acreage of beet was grown that year, though the farmers were offered 38/- a ton. They wanted 42/- a ton. They did not grow beet, except in very limited quantities. The Minister is also aware that the seed the factory was providing to the farmers was interfered with and maliciously destroyed at many railway stations. I do not want to labour that point beyond indicating that it showed a certain feeling among the growers as to what they considered a reasonable price two years ago.

I wonder has the Minister sounded the farmers as to whether 35/- is a reasonable price this year or next year. I do not know whether a contract has been entered into, but the Carlow factory people will not be slow to take their cue from the 35/- suggested here. If that amount is paid next year—and it will be very difficult to expect the Carlow factory to pay more—the point is, will that be a profitable price? It is suggested that the farmers will have the pulp and molasses if they want to take them away. What are they going to feed with them? I think we will leave that to the Minister for Agriculture to answer.

I do not want to be critical, and I hope, just as much as any Minister, that when this Bill is applied, it will be successful beyond the expectations of the Government or any member of the Government Party. At the same time, I think the Minister is moving too quickly when he asks the people to pay twice the price for their sugar. It is well that this should be stripped of all camouflage. The Minister said that we want 80,000 tons of sugar more. We can buy that for £800,000. That was roughly the ruling price of sugar since the Carlow factory was established. The best the Minister hopes for is to produce sugar at £20 a ton.

He is really asking the people to pay twice the price for their sugar. I would be glad to know that I am wrong in my deductions from the Minister's speech and that the figures I am giving do not correspond with the figures given by the Minister. So far as I see it there is 11/8 a cwt. customs duty on sugar. The Minister says that by increasing that slightly we can gain a monopoly of the home market. Instead of being able to buy sugar at slightly over 1d. a lb. we are going to produce sugar which will cost nearly 2d. a lb. and we are going to have a customs duty of 11/8 a cwt. slightly increased. If there is a falling off in the revenue obtained from the customs there will be an excise duty imposed, because the Minister for Finance says the Exchequer must not lose by the transaction. Why should sugar, an article of food, be taxed any more than milk should be taxed, and why should there be an excise duty on it any more than on milk or on butter?

There is one on butter.

Why did your Party oppose the reduction of the duty on sugar last year?

Dr. Ryan

He was not in the Party at all.

I am giving more or less an individual opinion on this. I do not believe that any article of food that we can produce in this country should be taxed and the poor are very heavy users of this as an article of food. The factories—some that are seen and some that cannot be seen—that are supposed to have sprung up in the last few years, and that the Minister talks about, are users of sugar largely as a raw material and why should they be taxed? But that is going into another field perhaps altogether. Whether the tax is to be put on or not, the outstanding feature of the proposal of the Minister for Finance is—assuming that the world price of sugar remains what it is and that his scheme will be as successful as he anticipates and to the very full extent that he anticipates—that it is asking this House to agree to a scheme that will increase the price of sugar to the consumer here by twice what it would otherwise be. It is asking the people to pay £1,600,000 or £2,000,000 for their entire sugar requirements instead of being able to buy it in the world market at £1,000,000. I hope that the Minister in reply and the other two Ministers concerned will prove more conclusively than the Minister for Finance that this is an economic proposition. He has not shown even that it will be remunerative to grow beet at the price offered and if the price of beet has to be increased then the price of sugar must be increased and I should like the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when speaking on this, to show why such high prices are necessary in the manufacture of sugar as distinct from the growing of the beet.

I have seen statistics from a German factory where they bought beet at 21/- decimal per ton and they turned it into sugar at 8/6 per cwt. The figures given by the Minister for Finance purport to show that if they buy beet at 35/- a ton sugar would be turned out at something around £1 a cwt. It is rather fantastic where the Minister for Finance says we gained £600,000 by paying £1,600,000. Personally, I think the scheme is too big at the moment, and if we cannot manufacture an article of food—I mean produce the article— except at 100 per cent. over the world prices we will be placing a handicap on those industries where we are able to produce at in or around the world prices. Before I would be enthusiastic about the scheme, I would want to have greater assurances, particularly from the Minister for Agriculture, that the growing of the beet would be taken up in a thorough manner, that we should not only raise our seed to grow our beet, but that we should have continual experiments and investigation in every crop everywhere to get the beet with the highest sugar content and produce the seed that will give the highest yield. That is how they increased the yield from beet from 3 or 4 per cent. to as much as 20 per cent. in some places. If we could get another 10 per cent. of sugar content from the beet the whole matter would be solved and the Government could step out of it. I think the Minister for Agriculture should apply himself to that, to increase the yield of the sugar content, and instead of paying foreign raisers of seed, as at present, that we should produce the seed ourselves. I do not know whether we are justified in going on with this experiment, and while I should like to see an extension of beet growing, I certainly would not favour committing the country to the producing of sugar at twice the cost it is in the world market. In saying that I am not hostile to it, because even before the experiment in beet was tried I was very enthusiastic about growing the sugar beet in this country and I went to the trouble and expense of importing seed from Germany. That was before the Government took the matter up, when sugar beet growing was only in the experimental stage here.

I hope that the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce here on Friday will cool the ardour of some of his supporters who have been telling the farmers in the country that there is a gold mine in the production of sugar from beet. Let him tell them the truth; there is plenty of hard work in the growing of sugar beet and very little profit.

Dr. Ryan

There are some points raised by Deputy Belton and a number of other Deputies besides that I am interested in as Minister for Agriculture. There is the point raised by Deputy Belton regarding the remunerative price. I think Deputy Belton is right in saying that members of this Party were in sympathy with the growers in Carlow in 1931 when they did not get the prices they were looking for, but I do not think that the members of this Party went further than the growers themselves. I was present at a meeting in Jury's Hotel held by the Growers' Association. I do not know whether Deputy Belton was present or not; he attends many of those meetings. I heard the chairman of the Beet Growers' Association state very definitely then that they did not claim that they could not grow beet at 38/- per ton, but they claimed they were entitled to a better share of the profits of the Carlow factory. It was on that point they fought the Carlow factory. I think that growers of beet all over the country will admit that they can grow beet profitably at something less than 38/- a ton. I do not know whether we fixed the price too low or not, but when this question was put to me, looking at it from the point of view of Government finances and the amount of taxation that is being raised in the country and looking at it from the point of view of the cheapest process under which it could be manufactured, it was really a choice of whether or not we wanted beet and if the price has to be increased it would look as if the project would have to be abandoned because it would cost too much. I believe myself that farmers will grow this beet for 35/- a ton and get the 17½ per cent. of sugar. I believe we will get sufficient acreage in the Free State to supply the three factories in addition to the Carlow factory and, perhaps, to supply a fifth factory at a later stage if the requirements of the country need it.

Deputy Belton quoted the Minister for Finance as saying that the average crop for beet is about 11 tons to the acre. I believe that is right.

I thought it was higher.

Dr. Ryan

No, but with the average yield at 11 tons, it works out at about £19 an acre and I think that that price for an acre of beet will be as remunerative to the farmer as any of the other crops he may be growing even when we have a guaranteed price, as in the case of wheat. It will probably be as good as barley at the price paid for barley during the last few years, which was 14/- or 15/- a barrel; or as potatoes, taking the average price that can be got—say, £2 one year and £7 another year—but taking the average crop over a number of years, I think that the growing of beet at 35/- a ton will be as remunerative to the farmer as these other crops. Deputy Belton raised another question with regard to seed. Before the Carlow factory commenced operations, there were experimental crops growing all over the country. I remember seeing some of those crops myself.

I grew them myself.

Dr. Ryan

There were various seeds distributed to the farmers at that time. Some were German seeds, some French and some Belgian. I think these were the principal countries from which the seeds came.

But we were never told the name of the seed.

Dr. Ryan

I know, but sure it was not necessary. Certain results were got from the growing of beet from these seeds all over the country, and I presume that the people who started the Carlow factory had those results before them when they selected the seeds.

On a point of information, is it not true that the factory in Carlow supplies the seed?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

And that it is just handed out and the people do not bother any further but just plant that seed?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, I was going to say that. From the time the factory started they supplied the seed to the growers. I believe they had good reason for that, because if they allowed the free purchase of seed it was felt that the sower might sow a larger acreage of beet than had been allotted to him. That was the principal reason, I believe. I think it would be reasonable to expect that the Carlow company would supply nothing but the best seed because, after all, they want to get the best possible quality of beet into their factory if they want to compete with others and, naturally they want to get the best yield. So, the price they were paying to the farmers would appear to be a good price taking into account the yield of sugar and the tonnage of beet. Any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the controllers of the factory gave what was, in their opinion, the best seed for the growers. It is true that no experimentation has been done, as far as I know, in this matter of seed since those experiments were carried out in the beginning. I quite admit that it would be our business now, if the Government is going to put money into this factory, and knowing that it is going to have a large share in the factory, and in view of the fact that it is becoming a national enterprise, whether controlled by the Government or by Irish capital outside of the Government—I agree that it would be the business of the Department of Agriculture more than ever to carry out experiments on the best type of beet, the propagation of seed, and so on with a view to getting higher percentages of sugar. There have been experiments carried out all the time with regard to the yield, the size of drill, the thinning, the length between the different seedlings left, and the amount of manure required, with the result, owing to these experiments, that the tonnage yield of beet has been increased rather than the yield of sugar. That has been done to some extent, at any rate, and these experiments will continue.

I quite agree with Deputy Belton also that we should go further into the breeding of these seeds for roots, and I cannot see any reason why we should not be able to rear our own seeds of mangolds, turnips, beet and so on in this country the same as they do in other countries. I believe there are people in the County Dublin—and I am sure Deputy Belton knows of them— who rear their own cabbage and turnip seeds.

They have strains over 100 years old.

Dr. Ryan

Well, I do not go back as far as that myself, but if it is possible for individual farmers in the County Dublin to produce cabbage and turnip seeds that are better, as they claim, than foreign seeds, there is no reason why we should not produce our own seeds, and I hope to be in a position within a few years anyhow, to elaborate a scheme of that sort. I hope that, when that happens, if Deputy Belton is still in opposition, he will support me in such a scheme.

Deputy Belton supported that scheme before the Minister became the Minister for Agriculture.

First in the field always!

I have here Statute 13 of the University College setting up the Chair of Agriculture where my handiwork is shown.

That is a good guarantee for the future.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton also advocated a central refinery. That was not overlooked. We examined that question. It did appear rather an obvious thing to an outsider to say that, if four beet factories were to be set up to convert the beet into molasses in the first instance it would be more economical to have the refining done at one central station, but we found on examination that such is not the case.

Could the Minister give the objections to the scheme?

Dr. Ryan

I can give them in a rough way. The capital cost would not be very much reduced in what you might call the subsidiary factory by making the subsidiary factory also a finishing factory. There is not much difference between the two. Of course you would have the additional factory set up on that, but the running of the factory— that is with regard to power and so on —is in no way different from the running of a subsidiary factory. A factory going through all the processes and a subsidiary factory would have about the same equipment with regard to the power, staff and so on. There would be no saving in the subsidiary factory and you would have the additional cost to be paid for. It would appear, at any rate, that the modern factory, to go through the whole process of sugar manufacture, is the cheapest and most economical way of setting up these factories. This scheme has been referred to as uneconomic.

I do not like to interrupt the Minister, but I should like to know from him did his Department or the Executive Council consider the idea of working cane sugar in the portion of the year when you had not the beet to work?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, but we did not think it necessary to make any provision for the working of cane sugar because our aim is within the shortest possible time to have all the sugar produced in the country that we would require, so that there would be no necessity for importing any cane.

But the manufacture of raw cane into sugar would keep your machinery running all the year and so would it diminish your overhead costs.

Dr. Ryan

It would hardly be good economics to import cane sugar to keep our machinery running all the year round, if we can produce all the beet we want for all the sugar required in the country ourselves. With regard to the increased costs there is a very big difference between the scheme we have set out and the Carlow scheme. If we were to build three more factories like the Carlow factory we would, with the four, have enough to deal with our full supplies. Some of these would be slightly bigger than the Carlow factory or we possibly might have five factories in all running and that would turn out 100,000 tons of sugar per year. That would be to meet our full requirements in sugar. If this were done on the lines of the Carlow scheme the full subsidy payable by the State would be £2,000,000 a year. Deputy Cosgrave asked if we were going to go on with this why not have an extension of the Carlow scheme, because the Carlow scheme proved itself a success; it was working well and that it would be much better to get the Carlow scheme extended than to go on with the present scheme. This scheme, if carried out on the lines of the Carlow scheme, would cost £2,000,000. Any Deputy can get the figures for this in the Library or in the Finance Returns. He will find that on the whole 100,000 tons of sugar the subsidy would amount to about £2,000,000 a year. What is it going to cost under our scheme?

£1,000,000.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think so. It would be 100,000 tons of sugar at an increase of ½d. per lb. extra.

Dr. Ryan

If we want no revenue from sugar, we can leave the sugar as it is.

Leave the sugar out and take the first cost.

Dr. Ryan

If we do, it will be exactly the same price as at present.

That is £1 a cwt.

Dr. Ryan

It is 2½d. per lb.

You can buy sugar at first cost now at 10/- a cwt. or £10 a ton.

Dr. Ryan

But there is the customs duty on it.

Leave all that out but deal with the point you are on. Leave that out at the moment; you can come to it afterwards.

The price in Germany is 20/- per ton. That is the average price to the farmer.

Deputy Gibbons will not catch Belton with bird lime of that sort.

Dr. Ryan

This is the point:—if the State is deriving the same income from sugar and therefore we are not injuring the Exchequer, in a way we can work our schemes by putting ½d. additional per lb. on the consumer. Therefore the only extra cost is ½d. extra per lb. on the consumer.

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but on the matter of the first cost, did not the Minister work it out at 20/8 per cwt? Did he not make that out as the cost of production? We can buy it at 10/- a cwt. In other words, we will manufacture at a first cost of over £20 per ton while we could buy it at £10 per ton. Now on 100,000 tons of sugar is it not clear that at this rate we would have a clear loss of £1,000,000 a year? I am putting that quite straight now. Is not that so?

Dr. Ryan

I am not clear at the moment as to what price sugar is coming in at.

I bought it yesterday at 10/- a cwt. to make sure.

Dr. Ryan

It is well to get in a stock anyway because it may be going up. The point that matters is this, if we want the State to get the same income from sugar we can work our scheme at an additional cost of one ½d per lb.

I will give the Minister all the income he likes but I must ask him to deal with the first cost. What he is getting here in the House as a Vote is a different thing. What I want him to deal with now is the first cost of the sugar and the entire loss to the State of this scheme.

Dr. Ryan

I will reply to that in a moment. I want to get the difference between the Carlow scheme and this scheme and I want to put it in this way——

So long as the Minister is coming back to that I will sit quietly. I can feel the Ceann Comhairle looking at me too.

Dr. Ryan

If we proceed on this scheme and give the State the same income as it had for the last two years with the present tax on sugar we would have to raise the price of sugar by ½d. per lb. so that the consumers would pay ½d. additional on the present price. I make that out on 100,000 tons of sugar at £480,000 a year. I did not work out that in any detail, but I think it comes to that. So that as far as our consumers and taxpayers are concerned, our scheme will cost £480,000, and the Carlow scheme £2,000,000 if we were producing the same amount of sugar. That is the difference between them.

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but what he has said now is absolute nonsense.

Dr. Ryan

I should like the Deputy to show me in what way it is nonsense.

I can show the Minister, but I do not want to interrupt. I will keep my promise not to interrupt.

Dr. Ryan

We are, as has been stated here, saving in three or four ways. We are making these economies. The factory will be supplied with beet at 35/- per cwt. on a 17½ per cent sugar content. The producer will get the molasses and the pulp back from the factory free of charge. He will have to pay the cost of bringing it back, that is all. Up to this the producer was entitled to these molasses and the pulp at 2/6 a cwt. The average yield of molasses from one ton of beet was one and the two-thirds cwts. He was entitled to get his molasses up to this at 4/4. That is what he would get. He is under this scheme getting an additional advantage. Those offals, it has been proved by experiment, are much more valuable even than 2/6 per cwt. Experiments carried out by county committees and by the Department have shown that the offals are equal in feeding value to crushed oats. Crushed oats, as Deputies who are following those matters know, are equal to maize and barley, and the other feeding stuffs, for cattle, horses, poultry and so on; in fact in every case except for pigs, and even up to the extent of 25 per cent. of the ration for pigs crushed oats are as good as the other feeding stuffs. We may take it then that the offals from beet are as valuable as any cereal mixture which the farmer may buy for feeding his stock. Those mixtures are now sold at somewhere from £5 10/- to £6 per ton.

What is the unit of comparison?

Dr. Ryan

Weight for weight they are equal.

Is that the Minister's own experience as a practical farmer?

Dr. Ryan

No. I have never used beet offals because I use whole beet.

I wish you would try.

Dr. Ryan

Experiments have been carried out by the county committees and by the Department, and the results of those experiments all go to show that the offals of beet, whether it is molasses or pulp, are equal in value to the ordinary cereals.

Weight for weight?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Is that dried pulp?

I thought you said you would keep quiet.

Dr. Ryan

Dried pulp or molasses as the case may be. They are equal in value weight for weight. If the farmer takes back the offals, he is actually getting back 8/- or 9/- worth of feeding-stuffs against the price that would be paid for beet under the new scheme as compared with the old.

Might I ask the Minister a question? On the Minister's figures would the offal on the Carlow total output be around 15,000 tons?

Dr. Ryan

It is about one-twelfth of the beet supplied.

If the farmer gets back 8/- or 9/- worth, approximately £5 has gone in?

Dr. Ryan

Oh, not at all.

Does he get back more valuable weight than he sent in?

I think 3 per cent. is molasses. Would the Minister, in tonnage, give us an idea of the amount of molasses and dried pulp from the Carlow factory?

Dr. Ryan

For dried pulp in the year 1930-31 the figure was 10,450 tons, and for molasses 4,170 tons; so the Deputy is right. It would be about 15,000 tons altogether.

I want to understand the Minister clearly, so that no injustice may subsequently be done. He has placed himself on record as saying that beet pulp, weight for weight, is as valuable a feeding-stuff as the cereals— as crushed oats. Does he stand over that?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I should be glad if the Deputy would stand over the other view now.

A Deputy

He would not grow beet.

If what the Minister states is the truth it is the eighth wonder of the world.

The Deputy is beginning to learn.

Oh, God knows what I have learned from the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Dr. Ryan

What I have said is the absolute truth.

Fianna Fáil truth though.

Dr. Ryan

Scientific truth, which is the same thing.

Perhaps Deputy Dillon does not know that beet pulp has much greater bulk for the same weight.

Will Deputy Gibbons confirm what the Minister has said?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy knows I always tell the truth.

You try to. I admit that.

Dr. Ryan

And I am more successful than others.

There is no good in questioning the Minister's statements. We have only to wait.

Dr. Ryan

I want to deal with a point made by Deputy Hogan. Deputy Hogan said that the growing of beet was, in his opinion, sufficiently tried in this country, and was not worthy of being continued. He went on to speak of the great advantages of the growing of mangolds and turnips; those being subsequently fed to live stock, and the live stock sold in the British market, if there was a free market in Great Britain. After all, our experience does not bear out what Deputy Hogan said. Deputy Hogan has often made the point in this House and elsewhere that the farmer is the best judge of his own business. What did the farmers do when they got the choice for the last seven or eight years, when they had a free market in Great Britain, and when they could, if they liked, sow mangolds and turnips, feed them to the cattle and export the cattle to Great Britain to be sold at the prices obtainable under Cumann na nGaedheal? Did not every farmer within 50 miles of Carlow get an acreage allotted to him to grow beet? There was a deluge of applications. After the first year they started they could never give the acreage that was asked for by the various farmers within a 50-mile radius or so. The farmers, who know their own business best, who had their market in Great Britain, and who were living in the Cumann na nGaedheal good times, chose to grow beet rather than mangolds and turnips. What Deputy Hogan said, therefore, is not worth serious consideration.

Would the Minister say if Deputy Hogan's statement had any relation to the future price of beet, as against the existing price?

Dr. Ryan

No. As a matter of fact if the Deputy will look up Deputy Hogan's speech he will see that at the end of it he said he did not know what we were going to pay for beet under the new scheme, but he hoped we were going to pay a lower price than had been paid up to then. I think those are the only matters that have been raised on this scheme from the agricultural point of view. I think that, generally speaking, as an agricultural proposition this beet scheme should be supported. I think that—without going into the various controversies we have heard from time to time about foreign markets— whatever our views may be with regard to foreign markets there is always the possibility that at any rate they may be closed or reduced to producers in this country. The only real, sure and certain market which the farmer has is the home market, and wherever we can get a scheme such as beet-growing or wheat-growing, or any of the other crops where we have a market here at home for the product, that scheme ought to be supported in this as in any other agricultural country. I am quite certain that when this scheme gets going we will get quite a sufficient number of farmers all over the country and quite a sufficient acreage for beet-growing to carry out the scheme as outlined in this Bill.

Will the Minister not return to his point, and prove that I am wrong when I make the deliberate statement that this scheme is going to cost the taxpayers of this country £1,000,000 per year?

Dr. Ryan

That is a point which the Minister for Industry and Commerce will deal with.

In view of the admixture scheme which the Minister for Agriculture introduced in this House, I think it is a question of having to deal with the surplus quantities of home-grown grain; and in view of the fact that there will be about 50,000 tons or thereabouts of offal which will have to be dealt with, I would ask the Minister has he considered the relationship between the two and whether one may not very much upset the other. Although the sugar beet industry may be criticised as extravagant and expensive, the Carlow sugar factory, it is agreed, has been a huge success and the farmers who have been clients or customers of the factory, except for the year 1931, have considerably benefited by the fact. Everybody is aware that the great attraction of beet growing has been the fact that it is a cash crop, and that the cash advanced is given in the middle of the year; that the seed is given free and that artificial manures are dispensed on the guarantee that their cost is to be deducted on the delivery of the beet at the factory. Unquestionably the disposal of a lot of the offal, whether it comes back free or not, to the farmers is one that is going to cause a lot of consideration. Even at the very cheap rate at which the pulp is sold back to the farmers, they could not dispose of it all. It has also to be remembered that there is no price at all for molasses. I presume the Minister for Industry and Commerce will see, when dealing with the question of industrial alcohol, that matter will be considered. But already there are rumbles of trouble as regards the price and I saw where the Beet Growers' Association are getting busy and showing alarm at the price of 35/-.

There is no doubt whatever that this year was the greatest year from the profit point of view in the sugar beet industry. The price of even 38/- proved to be far better than a higher price some years ago, because of the increased sugar content in the beet. I am informed that none of the continental people could touch it. But it is quite obvious that there have been rather lean years and that with 35/- and 17½ per cent. content there may be more of an element of gamble for the farmer than hitherto he has had to face. Last year's was the lowest price for beet ever offered. At the same time, due to Providence, it turned out very satisfactory. But there have been years when the crop yielded a lower weight in sugar content, and yielded a poor profit. The only cases that proved satisfactory, in one or two such years, were where the farmer had his own family to help him and not in cases where they had to employ labour.

At the present moment we know nothing about how this new business is to be run. We know nothing of how the company is to be formed and how, in two years' time, the owners of the Carlow factory will be treated, or what position they will be in. The question is engaging the minds of people as to how the whole thing will ultimately be run from a business point of view. Everyone admits that private enterprise is the best way to deal with the beet sugar question, if it could be done. On those occasions where enterprises have been State run, or even where there has only been State interference, the thing has never been a big success. One thing we have here is the great experience of the Carlow factory and the pioneering work they have done and the success they have made of it. Whether it would be a costly experiment for the taxpayers is not now at issue. I remember going over to Brussels as chairman of the deputation to interview the Lippens group and to encourage them to start a factory in our area. I remember, at that time, Messrs. Lippens were rather perturbed as to whether they would get 5,000 acres minimum beet grown. I remember a lot of us having to work here for two or three months to try to get contracts signed to grow the necessary beet. The farmers did not understand it and did not like to risk it. Ultimately they decided to start the factory in Carlow. They are now in keen competition with Athy. After the first year they were inundated with applications for the growing of beet, with the result that I really believe that having once entered into the idea of sugar beet here the huge number of applications for the growing of beet encouraged further development and an increase in the manufacture of sugar. I feel that the Government are taking the right step in increasing the sugar industry and in manufacturing as much as we can here. Whether it will be as successful under State administration and control as we have seen it under the Lippens group in Carlow, leaving aside the two different methods, is a matter I greatly doubt. I do not think that the State could give that great attention, and could devote such care to administration that has contributed so enormously to the success of the work in Carlow.

Mr. Lynch

Is it the present intention that the three new factories should pay the same price for beet as the Carlow factory? Is there to be an average laid down?

The intention is that all the beet purchased here will be purchased under the auspices of the one company which would arrange the same price for beet and sugar in respect of each factory. The position as far as the Carlow factory is concerned is that we hope to be able to conclude with the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company an arrangement for the purchase of that factory by the new company, which will bring it within the scheme. If no such arrangement can be made the present agreement with the Carlow company will continue until 1936, when the position will then be reached that the new company will be the only company in the country manufacturing sugar. The company will arrange its programme so that it will be able to pay a uniform price for beet throughout the country and to dispose of the sugar produced at a uniform price also.

Is that irrespective of the cost of manufacture at Carlow in comparison with the newer companies?

There may be some variation in the cost of manufacture at the different factories, but it will be very slight. The cost will be levelled off by the companies when fixing the price of sugar and beet.

But supposing it is found subsequently that these newer companies, worked by nationals of the State, are not able to manufacture sugar as cheaply or efficiently as it is manufactured at the moment in Carlow, will the Carlow factory still be absorbed into the new company?

Undoubtedly. There is no reason to anticipate that the new factories will not be able to manufacture sugar as efficiently as Carlow. In our calculations, however, we have naturally erred on the side of caution. The manufacturing cost we have taken into account is a rather generous one. It is somewhat higher than the actual cost at Carlow.

Is it not proposed to wind up or absorb the Carlow factory?

The intention is to acquire the Carlow factory.

You will not give them an extension of their lease?

The agreement that at present exists between them and the State will terminate in 1936——

You do not propose to renew it?

——if no fresh agreement is made in the meantime that will result in the earlier termination of that agreement.

The Minister for Finance said that if they did not accept the Government's terms they would run on to the end of their lease and the Government would not renew it.

That agreement will terminate in 1936, if it is not terminated earlier.

Why do away with the element of competition if the State derives any advantage from it?

There is no element of competition. Sugar must be manufactured here on the basis of a monopoly and we do not contemplate beet sugar manufacture here on any other basis. It is necessary to secure that the market will be available for the one company that will undertake manufacture. It is only on that basis we will get the capital invested or the enterprise properly undertaken.

Deputy Minch referred to the possibility of dissatisfaction at the price proposed to be paid for beet. He said there were already rumbles of trouble in that connection. It is quite true, as the Minister for Agriculture said, that any dissatisfaction at the price offered for beet by the Carlow company was not due so much to the relationship between that price and the cost of production as to the relationship between that price and the subsidy paid by the Government. In 1931 all the speeches made on behalf of the beet growers and the memoranda circulated stressed the amount of the subsidy when urging the growers' case for a higher price.

Deputy Belton referred to speeches made by members of the Fianna Fáil Party. I am quite certain that no members of the Fianna Fáil Party urged that farmers could not grow beet at 38/- a ton. They argued that, in the circumstances then existing, they should not. It is quite possible speeches to that effect were made, not merely, by members of Fianna Fáil, but by members of Cumann na nGaedheal. There is obviously a very decided difference between the two contentions. We are satisfied that at 35/- a ton for beet of 17½ per cent. sugar content the growing of beet will be definitely attractive to farmers and it is likely to yield them a higher profit per acre than most other crops. We have to make up our minds that 35/- a ton is the highest price we can offer. If the fact is that farmers will not grow beet at that price, then the scheme goes by the board. I feel satisfied they will.

When we are selecting the locations for the factories, one of the factors to be taken into account is the probability of getting an adequate supply of beet at that price. The location of the factories will be based on purely business considerations—transport facilities, water facilities, etc. One main factor will be the number of farmers prepared to enter into contracts to supply beet at that price. If farmers in a particular district do not think that the growing of the crop at that price is remunerative, nobody will propose to compel them to grow it. The farmers in another district who may be prepared to grow the crop will then get whatever advantages this scheme has to offer. We are told that beet growing is not economic. Deputy Belton said it to-day and Deputy Dillon, in much more bombastic style, the other day, said that beet growing had to be subsidised, and therefore it is a relief scheme and should be called a relief scheme.

The Minister himself said that on Friday last.

I did not quite say what Deputy Belton said to-day, or Deputy Dillon said on Friday. The manufacture of sugar from beet is uneconomic in comparison with the manufacture of sugar from cane. The production of sugar from beet is an uneconomic proposition having regard to the price at which sugar from cane can be procured. The production of beet sugar here, however, is by no means an uneconomic proposition, having regard to the costs of production in other countries where beet sugar is manufactured. The climate of this country is more suitable for the production of beet than the climate of most European countries. There is no country in Europe with a climate more suitable. We can get the highest yield per acre, and a higher sugar content than most other countries. It is quite true our farmers would not be prepared to grow beet at the very low price which farmers in certain other countries are prepared to accept.

The cost of manufacturing at Carlow is probably the lowest in Europe. Deputy Cosgrave said the Carlow factory was the most efficient in the world. I have no reason to quarrel with that statement. It can produce sugar from beet at a lower price than other factories can. We do not know what the cost of production at Carlow is. That is a matter for speculation, because the company have not told anybody. Taking into account our information concerning the cost of production in other countries, particularly in Great Britain, there is no reason to quarrel with the statement that the Carlow factory is as efficient as any factory in the world, and the cost of production is as low as the cost of production of any other factory. We are hoping to be able to introduce into the other factories to be established the same degree of efficiency as exists at Carlow.

In no country in the world is beet sugar an economic proposition if we regard it from a purely accountancy point of view. There is another point of view. Deputy Dillon and Deputy Belton have fallen into the habit of examining every proposition with an accountant's mind, looking only at the profit and loss account, and never seeing behind the figures the men, women and children whose livelihood is affected. It is true we can buy sugar at 10/- a cwt. from Europe. The countries selling us that are themselves maintaining a price at home more than double the prices prevailing here. We can buy sugar from Poland at 10/- a cwt., but in Poland sugar is sold at 7d. a lb., and we could buy it for 10/- in Czecho-Slovakia, but in Czecho-Slovakia sugar is sold at 6½d. per lb. It is 2½d. a lb. here. In order to maintain production they are subsidising exports, and when Deputy Dillon talks about the economic production of sugar he should not forget these considerations.

What about the cane sugar?

I am admitting that beet sugar cannot possibly compete with cane sugar if we are to regard everything from the accountant's point of view. We must remember that there are other points of view, and it is because of these that European countries are promoting the production of sugar beet, and Great Britain, too, where they are prepared to support it to a considerable extent.

Deal with the labour conditions and see——

I am in possession, and I will deal with anything I like. I am telling the Deputy that there are other considerations than those of the accountant. These considerations are obvious to most intelligent people, but they are not yet appreciated by the Centre Party, who do not realise that it is more important to keep people in employment than to maintain them in workhouses. The Carlow factory was subsidised to such an extent that some of us thought it could not possibly be run efficiently, because the subsidy was so high that they could make a profit no matter how inefficiently they did their business. But, fortunately, they did not succumb to the temptation and they ran it efficiently. The subsidy was high, but it was worth it even if the same results might have been obtained on a smaller subsidy. That factory has distributed in the Carlow area £500,000 a year, which percolated through the life of that district and resulted in better trade and more employment and a higher standard of living. By the expenditure of the subsidy we were able to do that, and I say it is worth while. We are going to get the same advantages in a larger number of districts by a smaller expenditure of money.

When Deputy Dillon says it is a relief scheme I would like him to elaborate that particular argument. I am afraid that Deputy Dillon talks for the sake of avoiding the necessity of thinking. He talks to conceal the fact that he has not been thinking. If it is true that the production of beet sugar is uneconomic because it is protected and subsidised, let him bring the argument further and he will find that it could be said that several other industries in this country should be called relief schemes. Does the Deputy say that we should call the production of butter in this country a measure of unemployment relief because it is subsidised? Does he want us to abandon the production of butter because it is subsidised? If there is any logic in Deputy Dillon and his colleagues in the Centre Party the same argument should apply. If the policy of the Centre Party is to abandon butter production because it is subsidised, let them go out and tell the people that at the cross-roads instead of the usual nonsense they talk here. We are subsidising the whole agricultural industry in this country; we give £2,000,000 for relief of rates on agricultural land and we have halved the annuities because it is necessary to give farmers some assistance from the general purse. Will Deputy Dillon argue that agriculture is carried on as a relief scheme? Is it the policy of the Centre Party to abandon agriculture as a whole? Some of our industries have been brought into existence and kept in existence by being given a measure of protection more than we propose to give to the beet industry. If Deputy Dillon is against the industry on that account he must also be against the maintenance of all the other industries, and if the Deputy's Party ever gets an opportunity of running the country it will produce nothing, but will become an ideal home for the babes in the wood from the Centre Party—green fields and flowers and trees—a land in which Deputy Dillon would be able to amuse himself by blowing his trumpet to his heart's content but with nobody to listen to him except Deputy MacDermot. But there are other points of view besides the point of view of the accountant and, by giving a measure of protection necessary to put the beet industry into existence, we are going to provide employment; it will be a cash crop for farmers and indirectly create new business for quite a number of industries, and we are going to do that at a cost to the community of an additional halfpenny a pound on sugar.

£1,000,000 a year.

A 1/2d. a lb. on sugar will be the cost to the community. When the Deputy was in Cumann na nGaedheal he opposed our reduction of the sugar tax by a 1/2d. When this scheme is in operation the price of sugar——

When you took the tax off sugar you put it on tea.

This scheme will mean that sugar will be restored to the level it was when Cumann na nGaedheal were in office, and in return we will have four factories each worth half a million a year to the district in which they are situate.

Will you answer a direct question?

Deputy Belton's argument is that we can buy sugar at 10/- a cwt. and that producing it here will cost us 20/- a cwt. Therefore, he says, the cost to us of 100,000 tons of sugar will be £1,000,000. That is his argument.

That is a statement of the position. Do you contradict it? I support the production of sugar from sugar beet but I want the statement made and the Deputies who are laughing over there never grew beet in their lives. They would not know what it is.

We could get the beet cheaper if we gave less to the farmers than they will be offered.

I am not arguing against the Minister.

I am pointing out that we could lower the cost of production by reducing the standard of living of our farmers and workers to the level prevailing in the countries spoken of by the Deputies opposite.

It is down to rock bottom now.

You are satisfied it is at rock bottom?

Any change, therefore, will be for the better?

It could not be worse.

It is a fact that sugar will be dearer but we desire to maintain a high standard of living for our people. It does not make any difference in the long run whether we reduce the price of sugar by subsidy or by reducing the standard of living except that in the one case the whole of the burden is to be borne by a small number of the people and in the other case it will be spread over the entire community. The main fact, however, is that the sole additional cost of this enterprise is going to be a 1/2d. per lb. in sugar; that is, roughly, £500,000 a year. We are paying a certain amount at the moment for sugar. That amount in the future is going to be increased by £500,000 a year and we are going to get this industry established in this manner at that price instead of in the manner suggested by Deputy Cosgrave, which was to extend the Carlow factory and which would cost £2,000,000 a year.

I think the Minister should quote Deputy Cosgrave correctly. Deputy Cosgrave made no suggestion as to the increased price due to the extension of the Carlow factory.

Deputy Cosgrave did not make that clear. He argued that, instead of proceeding in this manner, we should proceed by the extension of the Carlow system.

Not to extend.

The Minister must not be subjected to a running commentary.

The Minister misquoted Deputy Cosgrave and that is why I corrected him. Deputy Cosgrave has come in now and can answer for himself.

I said that Deputy Cosgrave suggested that we should proceed to get what we want by an extension of the Carlow system and not in the method proposed in the Bill.

I suggested that it was a better business proposition than that proposed in the Bill.

Quite. Is Deputy Belton not satisfied now? The trouble with the Cumann na nGaedheal Party is that they are always contradicting each other. I suggest that they should consult each other before coming in here to make speeches.

We return that advice to the Ministry, who have had to introduce Bills here, withdraw them, and re-introduce them again.

At any rate, if we change our mind, we change it collectively.

However, I have nothing further to say. So far as I have been able to understand the attitude of the Party opposite, they wish to see an extension of the beet sugar industry; they believe that the method proposed in the Bill is as good as any; but because it has been introduced by the Government they feel that it has to be opposed.

The Minister paid a tribute to the white elephant.

Question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put and agreed to.

If the House is agreeable I will put the Committee Stage down for Thursday next. Deputies will understand that, if it is desired to have the scheme under way so as to permit of the extension of the sugar beet area during 1934, the Bill would require to be law by about the middle of August and having regard to the fact that it has to go to the other House I think it is advisable to have the Committee Stage as early as possible. I do not think it is open to amendments.

Can the Minister say when it is proposed that the new factories will start work?

It is proposed to have them started in time to deal with the harvest of 1934. That would be about the end of September.

If anything arises on Committee it will be dealt with by amendments, I presume?

Has the Minister made up his mind as to where the factories will be established?

Deputies

They will all be in Cork.

I am glad to say that the responsibility will not rest with me.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 27th July, 1933.
Barr
Roinn