Industrial Alcohol (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee Stage (resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

When I moved to report progress last night, I had then pointed out to the House three matters in respect of which I submitted the House had been misled by the Minister, three matters which, I submitted, in themselves constituted good ground for rejecting Section 4. I do not propose to recapitulate one word of what I said last night, but I want to add two other considerations to the case I have made already and upon which I stand. I direct the attention of this House to sub-section (1) (c) (iii) of this section. It empowers the company set up under the Act of 1938—the House will remember that that Act repealed the Act of 1934—to include in its objects "the manufacture and sale of any substance, all or any portion of which is produced or obtained by chemical process".

I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tell us now what product or products he has in mind in that sub-section. I have adverted to the impropriety of producing a rectified spirit, to which he referred in the Second Reading speech, on the ground that an independent firm was already equipped to do so. He challenged the contention that the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia, to which he himself referred, should necessarily be more expensive if produced by the company under the sub-section than if it were bought on the world market. I feel in the despairing position that I am unable to bring home to the House the critical decision which is about to be taken by it. I know what is intended by this Bill. It is really a design to get, ultimately, sanction to produce this indispensable raw material of the agricultural industry through the mediumship of this company. The Minister has said, most disingenuously, to the House that the presence of deposits of gypsum in this country renders this country a pre-eminently suitable place for the manufacture of this commodity, thereby suggesting that we may anticipate its being produced at a price which would compete with the price from any factory in the world. But the fact is that the indispensable raw materials of the sulphate of ammonia industry are hydrogen and nitrogen, the fact is that, in industrial countries, these indispensable raw materials are the waste products of other industries and can be purchased by the sulphate of ammonia manufacturers from those other industries at waste price. If they were not taken over by the sulphate of ammonia factories, they would have to be thrown away; and as a result of their ability to buy on those terms, the cost of production of sulphate of ammonia is comparatively low. If, however, you have to set out on an independent industrial chemical process to manufacture nitrogen and hydrogen, for this purpose of ultimately using it in the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia, it is an extremely expensive operation. Nitrogen and hydrogen so procured are very expensive.

The Minister must know—his experts must have told him—that the only methods available to us for the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia in this country are incomparably more expensive than those readily available to manufacturers in industrial centres where they use the by-products of other industries. He has not told us that. If he had told the House that, many people who do not realise now the danger in which we stand at present would realise it. If this section remains in its present form, it will be used to levy, on all arable land in Ireland on which sulphate of ammonia of nitrogen in any form is used, a tax of 2/6 to 5/- per acre, in perpetuity. That is so monstrous a proposition that I have a horrible Cassandra feeling that I cannot persuade those who listen to me to believe it—and the horrible part of it is that, if this Minister gets away with it—in face of what the Minister for Agriculture declared here, when he condemned them both—once we are saddled with it, it will be almost impossible to free ourselves from it.

The last reason I want to adduce for rejecting this section relates to what appears to me to be a very serious point—and I cannot help feeling that it is somewhat disheartening to find about 15 members of Dáil Éireann in the House when the whole future of agriculture is in jeopardy and when we are asked widely to extend the way in which a company of this character will function and the powers this company has. Remember that when the Minister was justifying this wide extension provided for in Section 4, one of the strongest arguments he adduced was this. "It is not intended," he said "to spend one penny piece out of the Exchequer on these wider purposes, without first coming back to Dáil Éireann, stating the purpose and seeking the money." Now, on that representation, many men might shrug their shoulders and say: "Well, we do not want to be on the records as being opposed to Irish industry and the Minister says there must be another discussion about this matter before any additional expenditure can be put on the people."

Any persons who accept that are sadly misled. If they turn to the Principal Act, they will find that this company has power under Part V to obtain from every petrol distributor in the State a precise return of the petrol sold by him. They can then serve an order on the petrol companies requiring them to buy any quantity of industrial alcohol that the company, with the approval of the Minister, cares to compel them to take. They can then compel the oil company to incorporate that quantity of industrial alcohol in the petrol to be sold to the consumer. Under the protection of this Act, the petrol company can increase the price of petrol by a sum to be approved by the Minister but calculated at a rate to compensate the company for having incorporated industrial alcohol in the petrol sold. The Minister has told the House that that levy amounted to ½d. per gallon on all the petrol sold in the State. That levy did not go to the Exchequer. It was collected by the Industrial Alcohol Company and that is revenue which they may employ without any reference to this House good, bad or indifferent, for any or all the purposes of Section 4. So far, they have levied only ½d. a gallon on all the petrol used in the State. There is no reason why, under the powers conferred in the 1938 Act, they should not levy 2d. or 3d. a gallon by a device identical with that which I described to the House. Article 17, paragraph (2) of the Constitution provides:—

"Dáil Eireann shall not pass any vote or resolution, and no law shall be enacted, for the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys unless the purpose of the appropriation shall have been recommended to Dáil Éireann by a message from the Government signed by the Taoiseach."

Is the money levied from the public in the price of petrol public money or is it not?

Is there any enterprise conceivable by the mind of man which would not receive from financial institutions any accommodation it cared to seek, outside the ambit of this House's power to bestow, if it were prepared to offer to its creditors a guarantee that whatever they advanced would be repaid from the proceeds of a levy of 3d per gallon on all the petrol consumed in the State? Is it the intention of this House to create in this new company an autonomous body, answerable to nobody but the Minister, which can levy taxes at its own sweet will and which can notify the oil companies of what it wishes to collect——

An Ceann Comhairle

What the Deputy is discussing is not in this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

It is in the original Act, but we are changing the nature of the company. Before this, all they could do was manufacture alcohol. Now, they can do all the things I have described. Do we want to set up a body of that character which can issue its ukase to the companies and tell them that, if they do not do as they are directed within seven days, the servants of this new company have a right to levy by distress on their property? Further, these companies are under statutory obligation to await delivery of the spirit, in respect of which they are required to pay within seven days of the date of the making of the order, until it is convenient to the company to make delivery, with the guarantee that ultimately all the expenses of so providing will be passed on to the taxpayers and that all the revenue may be used for the purpose of establishing in this country an uneconomic industry for the manufacture of an essential artificial manure, the cost of which will be charged to the agricultural industry in perpetuity, and as a result of which every acre of Irish land competing in the British market against an acre of Danish land, an acre of Belgian land, an acre of Dutch land or an acre of New Zealand land, will for evermore carry a tax of 2/6 to 5/-.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the third time the Deputy has made that statement.

Mr. Dillon

If the House stands for that, it would stand for anything.

Mr. Lemass

The House can stand anything. I think most Deputies who read the Bill will be aware of the fact that its passage will not permit the Industrial Alcohol Company to manufacture anything except industrial alcohol. The powers of the company to engage in the manufacture of other chemicals are being enlarged but, before it can engage in such manufacture, the procedure contemplated in Section 7 of the Bill must be followed. Deputies need have no fears, therefore, that the company will commit the House or the country to any new developments which are not fully examined in advance. Deputy Dillon would have known that if he had read the Bill but, of course, any suggestion of new industrial development in this country is regarded by Deputy Dillon as a personal affront and makes him hysterical. I do not think we need pay any more attention to what he was saying on this section.

Mr. Dillon

You will before long.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Hughes spoke also on the section but I think most of his remarks related to the general principle of the Bill and harked back to the discussions we had on Second Reading. I do not want to repeat what I said on Second Reading but I think it desirable to clarify for Deputies the purpose behind the Bill. The Government considers that it is necessary to have a commercial organisation to investigate the possibilities of establishing in this country certain chemical industries. The need for these chemical industries was demonstrated during the war, but the practicability of them has yet to be established. It is true that in the stress of the war years, faced with shortages which could not be made good by imports, devices were adopted to ensure the production of essential materials on some basis which were not unsuccessful. I gave as an illustration the fact that there had been established, by the Department of Defence in collaboration with the Emergency Scientific Bureau, a factory for the production of explosives which, incidentally, made possible the continuation of the supply of matches because materials required for the manufacture of match heads were also produced in the factory.

It was the shifts we were put to to maintain supplies of essential materials during the war, the experience gained in that period, the possibility which that experience seemed to suggest of establishing important electro-chemical industries here, that led the Government to conclude that it was desirable to set up a commercial organisation to investigate the possibilities fully, an organisation which in certain circumstances could be authorised to carry out manufacture on a commercial scale. Having come to the decision that an organisation was necessary, the Government then had regard to the question of what form the organisation should take and, at that stage, it decided that it was desirable to transform the powers of the Industrial Alcohol Company and to give that company these functions rather than set up a new organisation. Whatever views may be held concerning the economics of the industrial alcohol scheme, I think there is no ground for question as to the capacity of the organisation which has run the scheme. The technical staff of the company are a body of very competent people. We could not get in this country a more competent organisation to carry out the particular types of investigation that we have in mind. It was decided, therefore, to give additional powers to the Industrial Alcohol Company so that it could carry out the functions we had in mind rather than set up a new organisation for that purpose. The sole purpose of this Bill is to effect that change.

Let it be quite clear that no decision has been made yet as to the chemical products in the manufacture of which the company may engage. Various possibilities are in mind and are being investigated Departmentally at the present time. Whether these possibilities, when examined in the manner in which it is contemplated that this company will examine them, will lead to the establishment of manufacture here it is too soon to say. It may be that the investigations will prove to be abortive or lead to conclusions that economic manufacture is impracticable. It may be that we shall get as a result an important industrial development.

I mentioned, by way of illustration of the type of development we had in mind, the possibility of producing here sulphate of ammonia. We investigated before the war the possibility of establishing a factory to manufacture sulphate of ammonia. There was an inter-departmental committee which went fully into that matter and had discussions with commercial organisations in other countries. It was a slow process. As I explained when introducing the Bill, the instrument of an inter-departmental committee was ineffective. It is true that there was a difference between the point of view of the Department of Agriculture and that of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the reconcilement of these different viewpoints contributed to the delay. As a result of the delay, the nature of the instrument we used, the desire on everybody's part to investigate every process of producing sulphate of ammonia before deciding on any particular process, we found ourselves in the position that no progress had been made before the outbreak of the war. It seems foolish to talk now about the cost of sulphate of ammonia here in connection with the cost of sulphate of ammonia elsewhere, because we just have not got any. Apart from small imports made available by the British authorities for a certain purpose, there was no supply of sulphate of ammonia at all available here except for some small supplies smuggled over the Border and sold at exorbitant prices in the black market. There is no Deputy who does not realise that it was unfortunate for the country that we did not succeed in getting established here that important industry before the war.

Deputy Hughes referred to the measures taken by the Government to protect the superphosphate industry. If these measures had not been taken we would have no superphosphate industry either.

In case the Deputy thinks I was misleading him, let me tell him something he does not know yet. At a later stage, a quota restriction was put on the importation of superphosphate from anywhere, but in fact licences were so issued under those quota restrictions that they could be used, and were used, only for the importation of superphosphate from Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dillon

In fact, a virtual prohibition.

Mr. Lemass

The only point I was making when I used that argument here was that if we can produce here sulphate of ammonia as cheaply as it can be produced in Great Britain, we should be satisfied. We produced superphosphate as cheaply as it was produced in Great Britain, but we did not and could not produce it as cheaply as it was produced in Belgium. I do not know if Deputy Hughes will contend, as I know Deputy Dillon would, that the efficiency of Irish industry must be judged in relation to the lowest price at which products can be purchased in any part of the world, no matter what the social conditions in that part of the world and no matter what special circumstances may affect prices. That is not our view. It seems to us that sulphate of ammonia is an industry for which this country is particularly suited. It is almost the one chemical industry which we can carry on here without importing any thing. Every raw material required for the production of sulphate of ammonia is available here.

It may be that there are factors which will make it impossible to produce it as economically as it can be produced elsewhere—the size of our market, the cost of electricity and certain other factors; but, on the other hand, we have very valuable deposits of gypsum. Gypsum is an essential raw material for this industry. Our gypsum deposits are by a long way the most valuable mineral resources of this country. At present, we are exporting gypsum to many countries— Finland, Sweden, Holland, and Denmark, as well as Great Britain. We do not want to utilise these valuable deposits merely to export raw rock anywhere. We want to use them as the basis for the industries they can support and one of the industries we have in mind is the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia.

We are not committing ourselves to establishing that industry. We are not pledging this organisation to establish the industry. We are proposing to ask the organisation to investigate fully the economics of that industry and the particular problems that will arise if it is to be established. There are many different processes, some of them patented processes, for the production of sulphate of ammonia. Which is the most suited to our circumstances, and which will work most economically in our circumstances? These are the questions which we will expect this company to answer, but, before they can manufacture it, not merely must public notice be given under the provisions of Section 7, but, because of the capital required for such a development, there must be further legislation because the capital resources of this company would not be adquate for the purpose.

Let me be quite clear as to the difference between the new functions and powers which the company is getting under this Bill and the functions and powers it has under the original Act. So far as the production of industrial alcohol is concerned, whether denatured spirit or undenatured spirit, the company is fully empowered to engage in it under the powers conferred by the 1938 Act. Deputy Dillon said I was misleading the Dáil when I intimated that there are provisions in the Bill designed to ensure that the company would not engage in the manufacture of any chemical product in competition with private firms. I want to distinguish between the new forms of manufacture which the company may engage in because of the new powers given it under this Bill and the forms of manufacture in which it can engage now.

It can now produce industrial alcohol and has produced industrial alcohol, both denatured and undenatured, and the plant which is now being installed at Cooley to produce a very fine neutral spirit is being installed and will be operated by the company under the powers already possessed by it as conferred by the Act of 1938. There is a company in Cork producing a limited quantity of similar spirit. It is doing so under the authority of a licence given to it under the Act of 1938. The company needs no new powers to produce any form of industrial alcohol. I mentioned in the course of the Second Reading debate that some doubt—how strong the doubt is, I cannot say—exists as to the liberty of the company under the 1938 Act to sell spirit except to petrol distributors. It has in fact been selling spirit to hospitals, laboratories and industrial users during the war, but there was some element of doubt as to whether it was entitled to do so. We are removing that doubt under the Bill and making it clear that it can sell industrial alcohol to anybody. But, of course, the bulk of its production of industrial alcohol will continue, in future as in the past, to be sold to petrol distributors.

There is no necessity for new legislation to empower the company to engage in the manufacture of industrial alcohol in any form. If it goes beyond the production of industrial alcohol into the manufacture of other chemicals, it will require a licence under Section 7. Before that licence can be given, there must be public notice of the intention to give the licence through the Press and an opportunity must be given to private interests which may be affected to make whatever objection they have to make. The intention is that the licence will not be given to the company unless it is clear, as a result of that public investigation of the situation, that private interests are not likely to engage in the production of the chemicals in question on an adequate scale.

Mr. Lemass

Did I not say that to-day? That is the explanation of Section 9 of the Bill. I gave it in introducing the Bill and I have given it again now.

Mr. Dillon

I understood the Minister said there was nothing in the Bill which extended the powers of the company to sell spirits. In the same breath he said that he wanted to assure the House that there was no question of this company competing with any other company which was under private ownership in the production of any product which that other company was prudently producing. To-day he announces blandly that he knows well there is a company in Cork producing this highly rectified spirit, and Cooley is going to do the same thing. Which story is true? Is he going to use the power to compete with private firms or is he not? He says he will not. But in the next breath he says that at this moment the company is installing machinery at Cooley to compete with a Cork firm which is producing an identical article.

Mr. Lemass

As I explained, the Cork firm is operating under a licence given under the Industrial Alcohol Act. There will be no question of competition.

Mr. Dillon

What do you mean? Are they not both producing the same highly rectified spirit? Is there any Deputy who believes that if there are two firms producing the same article for a very limited market there will be no competition between them? Does that statement make sense at all? To me it seems a complete contradiction, and I refuse to accept it. Words have lost their meaning if we are to say in the same breath that Cooley and Cork are producing an identical product for a limited market and there will be no competition between Cooley and Cork. If Deputies fall for that kind of trash, there is simply nothing we can do about it. Deputy Ó Briain smiles.

Will Deputy Ó Briain, who is a man accustomed to teaching, say if there is anything wrong in my logic? Will Deputy Ó Briain explain to me how you can say that Cooley and Cork are both going to produce exactly the same product, that the market for that product is strictly limited, and that there will be no competition between Cooley and Cork? I say that is self-contradictory and, if Deputy Ó Briain disagrees with me or thinks I am an obscurantist in taking that view, I will be grateful if he will explain where I have gone wrong.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

I will not explain anything, because it would do no good.

Mr. Cogan

The market might be limited, but the supply could also be limited.

Mr. Dillon

By going to the Cork firm and saying to them: "You shall not be allowed to supply." I wonder if the Deputy will agree that, if he makes a capital investment in an alcohol factory in Cork, his object will be to sell the maximum quantity? The Minister has guaranteed that he will not use this company to compete with any private enterprise. I quite agree that it is possible for the Minister to say to the Cork firm: "There is a market for 100,000 gallons. You may only produce 40,000, and Cooley 60,000. At that 40,000 you must stop." Surely to say that does not represent competition is, to say the least of it, to be disingenuous. It may not constitute competition, but it constitutes prohibition. Surely the greater contains the lesser. It is worse to prohibit than to embarrass with competition. I will leave it to the House. To me, it is an utter negation of the undertaking given by the Minister.

Last night the Minister said that it was the impact of war alone which prevented us from having a sulphate of ammonia industry here. I read here in his presence the statement of his own colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, formulated as a confession in the House, that he had vetoed the establishment of a sulphate of ammonia factory in this country because such a factory could only be introduced on the basis that this ammonia would cost us 10 per cent. more than if we got it from abroad.

The Minister for Agriculture also says: "I would not allow that additional burden to be placed on agriculture." To-day we are told a devious story about inter-departmental committees and various views and so forth. Did the Minister for Agriculture use these words in Dáil Éireann or did he not? If he did, was he speaking what was true or what was false? If he spoke truly, the Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke falsely. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke truly, as reported in column 540 of the Official Reports, the Minister for Agriculture spoke falsely and I am entitled to know who was speaking the truth. I believe that the Minister for Agriculture was.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce says that the opposition to this proposal to set up a sulphate of ammonia factory is due to a constitutional objection on my part to Irish industry. The Minister seems to forget that before he or his belongings were ever heard of in this country I and my belongings had invested everything they had in this country. There was industry functioning in this country before the name of Lemass was ever heard of. It was industry that had not to pay bribes to political rackets in this country in order to get licences to rob our people. Let us have a truce to that type of talk. If anyone in this country dares to attack the tariff racketeers, he in unnational and opposed to Irish industry or to the employment of our people. It is those of us who want to be proud of Irish industry, who want to see our people employed, and who employed our people by providing the means by their own labour to create employment for them, who resent and detest the fungus industries which have grown up in this country as a racket to rob the people and fatten the racketeers. There is no Deputy who does not know that I am speaking the truth in that regard.

I object to the establishment of an industry here which will result in the farmer who has to sell his goods in the British market, because he has nowhere else to sell them, being burdened with a tax which his competitors in that market have not to bear. That is my sole objection. I reject the attempt by the Minister to mislead our people in that regard.

This House has to make up its mind on this question; are you going to ask the farmers of this country to produce agricultural products which they must sell in the open market in Great Britain and, at the same time, require them to pay a tax on their raw materials that the competitors they have to meet are not called upon to pay? Because, if you do intend to do that, it means that you intend to make our farmers paupers, while the farmers of other countries who are supplying the British market enjoy a moderate standard of comfort. If you want to feed a beast in this country, it will take the produce of half an acre to feed him. If you tax that half-acre through the manure the farmer must use upon it, the amount of that tax will come out of the profit which he is able to earn in competitions with those he meets on the British market who have no tax to bear and you will, as certainly as we are in this House, ultimately create a situation that where the Dutch, the Danish or the Belgian farmer is prepared to take 10/- profit on his beast, our farmer, who has worked just as hard, just as efficiently, just as resourcefully, will be obliged to sell his beast for no profit at all in order to meet the Belgian, the Dutch and the Danish price, because the profits enjoyed by the foreign farmer, who has free access to raw materials wherever he can buy them cheapest, will be consumed, at the expense of the Irish farmer, by the tariff racketeers of this country who do not give a damn about the people they exploit so long as they can line their pockets and live in stylish houses out of the unjust profits, extracted behind a tariff or quota restriction, in their factories where those things without which the farmers cannot carry on their business are being made.

How shall we pursue the Minister in the maze of misrepresentation which he brings forward in regard to highly technical matters? Fortunately, I can follow him every step of the way for I have handled these things as he has never handled them. I have sold them and bought them and I have seen them used. The pity is that there are few Deputies who have the same experience. Some have used them; some have bought them; some have sold them, but there are very, very few who have bought, sold and used them and who can, therefore, follow through the intricate maze of the technicalities of this trade. The Minister says to Deputy Hughes, one of the men in this House who has used them, that there was no restriction on the import of super and then he proceeds to wriggle out of that when he realises that if he does not wriggle out of it his ear will be nailed to the post of that misrepresentation. There was first a prohibitive tariff on Belgian super and then there was a quota restriction on all super. Why? I will tell you. I know. I saw it. I saw the whole dirty rotten transaction and I reported it to this House.

That strange mind there if it has a rational process at all, which I often doubt, has managed to impress this queer superstition on his colleagues. He justifies every extravagance in which he engages as a step towards that degree of economic self-sufficiency which he happens to be advocating at that particular moment. Sometimes at banquets in Tramore he is a daring freetrader.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is wandering again.

Mr. Dillon

To-day he justifies the proposition put forward on the section that it will contribute to our economic self-sufficiency. You can see the few Fianna Fáil heads that are here wagging like mandarins and saying: "After all we are on safe ground; the chief says that, so it must be right; anything that he wants to do, if it is economic self-sufficiency is o-kayed by us, whether we understand it or not," but if he will use any other argument for it, then their native wit will enlighten them. They see what it truly is—a tax on their neighbours and a burden which their own people will have to bear. Against that average decent men, countrymen most of them, would react violently. At economics, self-sufficiency, every head starts nodding, because a negation would mean excommunication by the chief. Till we get rid of that mentality, we shall have a series of follies of this character thrust upon us, but so long as I am here, so long as I can get a quota of people to send me here, I will fight them every inch of the way. Some day the people on this side of the House, God help them, will have to clear up the mess that this Fianna Fáil Party has created.

Mr. Allen

For whom do you speak?

Mr. Dillon

Every rational member of the House—and that excludes 77 of them.

Mr. Allen

Are you their leader?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

What about the majority of the people?

Mr. Hughes

I have some rough idea of the process by which sulphate of ammonia is manufactured. I am aware, too, that it is not necessary to collect nitrogen as a by-product from some other industry and I am aware that synthetic sulphate of ammonia is now produced. I am satisfied from what the Minister stated that, in the matter of raw materials, we have the anthracite—perhaps the Minister can say we have the turf—and we have the electricity. Given a very high temperature we can combine the nitrogen with the air.

With the rather crude ideas I have about it, I am not at all satisfied, taking into account our requirements, the amount we used pre-war and the amount we could use, that it is possible to produce sulphate of ammonia economically here in competition with Imperial Chemicals at Billingham. The Minister suggested that it can be produced at a price equal to the import price. He added that he was giving some information about superphosphate of which I was not aware. He indicated the 20 per cent. on Belgian products and that afterwards there was a quota fixed. I want to give the Minister some information now. We have been the lowest users of superphosphate in the world because of the high price we had to pay.

In recent years, when one would expect, with the increased knowledge of the agricultural community so far as the advantage of using phosphate is concerned, that more of it was used, the Minister can see from the returns that the amount utilised by our primary industry has not increased from year to year. I do not think Britain was ever interested in an export trade in superphosphate, so there is little use in the Minister suggesting that we did not get imports from Britain, because Britain is interested only in the manufacture of super for her own requirements.

The House cannot overlook the warning given by the Minister for Agriculture and his departmental experts and also by our agricultural economists. They have warned the country as to the necessity of providing these essential materials for agricultural production at a competitive price. There is no use in going into details, because they are elementary. The Minister must appreciate that the margin for the primary producer the world over has been very narrow at all times.

As a result, there are suggestions made about the formation of a federation of primary producers, F.A.O. and organisations of that sort, to try to make an international effort to secure a more reasonable margin for the primary producer. If it is essential for our economy that we have an exportable surplus and we have to sell it in competition with farmers who have raw materials at a lower price, that is the real danger and that is what I am concerned with.

The Minister is taking pains to represent this Party as against the establishment of Irish industry. We are against the establishment of any industry that will throw undue burdens back on other industries, and particularly the primary industry. In the circumstances in which we live here, we must have a very substantial exportable surplus if we are properly to develop, because we could not possibly consume what the land is capable of producing. We cannot afford to throw back burdens on the primary industry simply because it appears desirable to have an industry of this sort. The desirability is not enough. The economic aspects and the repercussions on other industries, particularly on the primary industry, must be carefully examined. I submit that empowering this company to carry out any research work with a view to the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia is not the right procedure and the Minister is not providing the necessary safeguards that the House would desire. An independent tribunal ought to be set up to examine the matter if the Minister is convinced that it is possible to manufacture sulphate of ammonia at an economic level.

The Minister stressed the war situation, but surely we are not going to plan for an internal war situation. Are we to plan for a war situation all the time or for a fairly long period of peace and a short period of war? Have we to carry as a safeguard undue burdens that the primary industry cannot carry? That is the position in a nutshell. I do not think the Minister is quite fair. He is merely playing politics when he tries to represent this Party as opposed to industrial development. We are opposed to schemes that throw back heavy burdens, particularly on agriculture, that will inevitably depress the agricultural outlook. If the Minister examines the position over the last 15 years he will be surprised to find our agricultural output has fallen. The volume reached a higher level prior to that period.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It is static.

Mr. Hughes

I should like the Minister to consider that fact and to ask himself why that condition of things prevailed.

Mr. Cogan

In a matter of this kind, when a Deputy comes up against experts, it is difficult for him, not being an expert, to express an opinion. What the ordinary layman—if I may use that phrase to describe a Deputy who is not an expert—would seek is the guiding principle which governs a section of this kind and the operations of a company such as this. I do not subscribe to the idea of self-sufficiency, neither am I opposed to the development of Irish industry here. I believe that in every way the genius and energy of our people should be directed towards developing here every conceivable industry, having regard to our resources. I also hold, as a guiding principle, that private enterprise should, in the main, be permitted to operate our industries manufacturing in every sphere and, to a great extent, research also. However, there are occasions on which the community as a whole, through the State, must come in to assist private enterprise. This is particularly true in a small nation like ours, where there are no big industrial concerns to carry out far-reaching research. On that account, there seems to be a case for the establishment of a State company to carry out certain activities in regard to manufacture and research.

We must also ensure that the consumer is protected and, in the case of the manufacture of the substance provided for in this section, artificial fertilisers like sulphate of ammonia, the consumer is also a very important producer and so it is particularly necessary to protect him adequately. The only fear that arises in my mind is that the protection provided in this Bill may not be adequate. We know that various safeguards have been suggested by the Minister, in this Bill and in the Principal Act, but we know how similar safeguards broke down in the past. For example, in connection with the manufacture of bacon, we saw how the safeguards provided for the community were disregarded and overturned. We must be very much on our guard to ensure that the net result of the passing of this section will not be to increase the cost of sulphate of ammonia to the Irish farmer.

I am not prepared to accept the view that we should refrain completely from manufacturing sulphate of ammonia unless we can manufacture it more cheaply than in any other part of the world.

Mr. Hughes

I do not think anyone suggested that.

Mr. Cogan

No. I am not answering any point made by Deputy Hughes but am merely expressing my own thoughts and ideas. If we admit that there might be a case for manufacturing it here, perhaps at a somewhat higher price than that at which it could be imported, we may be accused immediately of seeking to impose an additional burden on the farmer. Of course, that does not follow at all. The manufacture of certain commodities such as this may impose some additional burden on the farmer and on the community, but perhaps their non-manufacture would impose an even greater burden on the community in general. There will always be a population here to maintain and the burden of maintaining it might be greater than the cost of putting the people to produce in industry.

Therefore, it behoves us to be extremely careful and to view this section in its widest perspective, having regard to the whole economic set-up. For example, it is true that during the years before the war, home-manufactured sugar cost something more than imported sugar would have cost, but if we take the whole period during which we have been manufacturing sugar here, we find that there is a net gain to the community through manufacturing. The answer to that may be that, here again, we are planning all the time for a war situation. However, we cannot eliminate from our calculations the fact that, in spite of the benevolent attitude of the Great Powers towards each other and their mutual guarantees, there may be another war at some time in the future. Even leaving that question out of consideration altogether, there is an urgent and pressing need for our people to engage in industrial research and development—and particularly in the development of industries which are of a complex nature, which require a good deal of expert knowledge and deep research and which are very technical in their processes.

The industries which are going to succeed here in the future are not the simple, old-fashioned industries like mining and the heavy industries like iron and steel, but rather the more complex and technical ones. Therefore, I would be slow to turn down the proposition which is submitted to us in this section; I would be slow to prevent this company from undertaking the manufacture of commercial substances—perhaps at the outset mainly for experiment, but with a view to their becoming permanent industries. The House should realise that we have no individual manufacturers with the resources and advantages possessed by some of the huge manufacturing companies in other countries. It should be borne in mind, also, that some of our biggest and oldest established industries arose in their infancy from an Irish Parliament over 120 or 140 years ago giving them some encouragement and definite assistance in their initial stages. These points must be remembered in considering the proposition contained in this section.

Mr. Roddy

It is only right that a section of this kind should be critically examined because it contains unusual provisions. In course of time, it may impose a burden on the State which may not be justified on rigid economical grounds. I have no fault to find with sub-section 2, which provides for experiments for the purpose of ascertaining if chemical processes can be safely undertaken here. This discussion has centred on the establishment of a sulphate of ammonia industry. If it is the intention of the committee associated with the company that such an industry should be established, it is only right that another committee should be set up for the purpose of examining the economics of that industry.

Some of your colleagues will recollect it as well as I do. I am just wondering what Deputy Hughes has in mind in his objection to the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia in this country. Would it not be better to have it in view as a long-term policy for the country even if it did cost 1/- or 2/- per cwt. more? If we had a sufficient supply for the last six years we would not be short of so many agricultural products as we are to-day. The Deputy will admit that. The very same argument was used on the benches opposite against every proposal to start other industries here in years past; we have heard it time after time. We have a very definite recollection of it in regard to the manufacture of cement, but we do not hear a word about cement to-day. We do not hear it said that cement costs the primary producer or the builder more than it would if we were importing cement.

I am just wondering when we are going to get away from having the same arguments trotted out on every occasion there is any proposal to improve the lot of the people of this country, because that is what it means. The very same arguments were used in the Parliament of this country many years ago to bring about the Act of Union. It was urged that it was far better to be in union with another country which could produce things much more cheaply than we could hope to produce them. Deputy Hughes used the very same argument. I am surprised, and very often pained, to hear any Party suggest that we cannot produce anything in this country, that some concern in foreign lands can produce it more cheaply than we can and that unless we can buy these cheap products of other countries on all occasions, agriculture cannot exist here.

I want to say, as one having at least the same interest as Deputy Hughes in the future of agriculture, that the ordinary farmers do not accept these theories at all. They have never accepted them and they have shown very definitely that they are interested in having industries created in this country. They have shown it by the fact that on several occasions by their votes they have put the Deputy and his Party in a minority and put the Party on this side of the House in a position to build up these industries. Farmers who are interested in having their costs of production as low as possible on all occasions do not accept Deputy Hughes' theories. We have of course the old Tory few, a certain small element in the country, who are always opposed to this country producing anything except flocks and herds. Deputy Hughes, whether he realises it or not, is advocating the very same view on every occasion he gets up here in this House.

I am sorry that any group or any responsible member in this House should put forward views of that kind. I do not mind Deputy Dillon, because nobody heeds what he says. He has not the views of any sane person and never advocates the view of any sane person, but I am surprised that any member of a responsible Party representing a certain view in the country, and including in its membership many who are strongly in favour of building up industries in this country, should share the views of Deputy Hughes. Everybody is anxious to have the taxation of the primary industry of the country kept as low as possible but it must be remembered that the primary industry enjoys a large measure of protection in the home market. It is protected against the agricultural produce of any other country in the world and Deputy Hughes is aware of that. Side by side with his objection to establishing a factory to produce sulphate of ammonia, if he were consistent in his views he should advocate that in normal times the import of all agricultural products should be freed from restrictions of any kind.

I hope the Minister will continue his investigations into the possibilities of producing this very necessary commodity in this country. It is absolutely essential for agriculture and agriculturists are long sorry that it has not been available for the last six or seven years. If it had been available, output would have been increased by at least 20 per cent. There is no immediate sign of its becoming available from outside sources and I hope that as a result of the investigations which he intends to initiate, the Minister will succeed in having it produced in this country.

Mr. Donnellan

I have read the section. We are told here that it may cost a little more. Deputy Hughes told us about what could be got from Belgium, as did Deputy Dillon, and how cheaply it could be got there, but what could be got from Belgium during the past five or six years? There was nothing to be got. I am not who would like to see any action taken which would impose a burden on the section of the community I represent, but that section is one which does not mind bearing its share of the burden. I believe that, even with the extra 10 per cent., sulphate of ammonia would have been very cheap if we had had it for the past six years, when we consider that sulphate of ammonia was brought across the Border and sold to the farmers in Deputy Hughes' constituency at £70 a ton.

We must realise that the setting up of industries will help this country and will help the home market. Listening to some Deputies, one would imagine that everything we have must go to a foreign market. Thank God, we have a home market here for a fair share of our produce and our job is to make that home market still stronger. I should like the Government to realise that, while I am in this House, they will get every help from me that I can possibly give to build up these industries for the production of commodities essential to our people. That will be the home market for our producers and the greatest value of all will be that it will save our children from being exported as they were exported in years gone by. I suggest that the Minister should go forward with this Bill and see what can be done, to do it in the best way possible and I believe he will have the goodwill of the people in doing so.

Mr. Hughes

Mr. Lemass

I doubt if you could get a more independent tribunal than this board.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 19.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Beirne, John.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac
Brennan, Martin.
Brennan, Thomas
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
Bulter, Bernard.
Carter, Thomas.
Colbert, Michael.
Colley, Harry.
Commons, Bernard.
Corish, Brendan.
Corry, Martin J.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Davin, William.
Derrig, Thomas.
Donnellan, Michael.
O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Leary, John.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Everett, James.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Furlong, Walter.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Keyes, Michael.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Lydon, Michael F.
Lynch, James B.
McCarthy, Seán.
Moran, Michael.
Morrissey, Michael.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Connor, John S.
Ryan, Mary B.
Ryan, Robert.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Walsh, Laurence.
Walsh, Richard.

Níl

Bennett, George C.
Coogan, Eamonn.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Finucane, Patrick.
Giles, Patrick.
Hughes, James.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Mulcahy, Richard.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Reidy, James
Reynolds, Mary.
Roddy, Martin.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Sheldon, William A. W.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

And the licence is conferred by Section 7 or may be conferred under the powers given in Section 7.

Mr. Dillon

If it is more convenient, I shall raise it on Section 7.

But this is on the records of the House. This man told me, "I started to grind spices and now they have given an exclusive licence to Goodalls."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 20.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Brennan, Martin.
Brennan, Thomas.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
Butler, Bernard.
Carter, Thomas.
Childers, Erskine H.
Colbert, Michael.
Colley, Harry.
Corish, Brendan.
Corry, Martin J.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Derrig, Thomas.
Everett, James.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Furlong, Walter.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Keyes, Michael.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Loughman, Frank.
Lydon, Michael F.
Lynch, James B.
McCarthy, Seán.
Moran, Michael.
Morrissey, Michael.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Connor, John S.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Leary, John.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
Pattison, James P.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Ryan, Robert.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Walsh, Laurence.
Walsh, Richard.

Níl

Beirne, John.
Bennett, George C.
Commons, Bernard.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Donnellan, Michael.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Giles, Patrick.
Hughes, James.
MacEoin, Seán.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Mulcahy, Richard.
O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Reilly, Thomas.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Reidy, James.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Sheldon, William A. W.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Ciosáin and Ó Cinnéide; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 8.

A register of importers would be established. The Act provides the basis on which it would be established. Every member on the register would get a licence for a portion of the global quota, determined in accordance with certain rules. The register is based on purchases by the firms engaged in the business prior to the quota. At some stage, we shall have to get a different basis but that is the present basis.

Question put and declared carried.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister say what was the rate of interest provided for under Section 23 of the principal Act?

Mr. Lemass

Four per cent.

Industrial Alcohol (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee Stage (resumed).

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Nov 1946