Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 May 1957

Vol. 161 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Ground Limestone Distribution.

Mr. Desmond

I was somewhat surprised to-day by the answer the Minister gave to the question I raised, and particularly the second part of it. I fail to understand how the Minister could have taken anything from it other than the cost of subsidy per thousand ton lot from three different works: (a) from the sugar company, Mallow and (b) and (c) from the two local works in Crookstown. At this stage, I want to draw the Minister's attention to certain figures given to me. I know that he has the advantage in his Department of being able to get the information necessary and, perhaps, he would then check this information and compare one with the other.

We agree that the subsidy is essential in the case of ground limestone, which is a very important commodity indeed; every penny spent on it is well spent. I come now to the figures given by the Minister. Within a radius of ten miles, there is a subsidy of 5/9 per ton. That would work out, in relation to 1,000 tons supplied from the local limeworks, at £287 10s. From the information I secured in relation to a distance of 31 to 35 miles, 1,000 tons which could be provided in the

Crookstown area by the local people at a cost of £287 10s., costs £708 6s. 8d. when it comes from the sugar company, since the subsidy is increased owing to the longer mileage.

In this district at the moment, there is an order going through for a little over 5,000 tons through a local combine of farmers. Now the Minister may say that they will get this lime cheaper from the sugar company. Possibly that is so. They may get it at about 1/6 a ton cheaper. If that is the case, the farmers will gain £375 by giving the order to Mallow. There are roughly 200 to 250 farmers involved and that means that the £375 must be divided between them. In order to give the farmers that £375, there will be an additional loss to the State on the 5,000 tons of £2,104 3s. 4d.

In the Crookstown, Bandon and Enniskean area, it is estimated that nothing less than 26,000 tons of ground limestone will be required this year. Every ton of that will be needed. If the farmers procure it from this company, they will again make a profit. That profit will amount to £1,950. Roughly 500, or more, farmers will be involved. While it is considered economic to give the order to this company in order to gain £1,950 the State is nevertheless prepared to lose £10,941 13s. 4d. We were told here to-day that there is no money for anything. There is no money for housing. The problem, in relation to everything, is money. Yet, here in this one instance, we have a figure of loss to the State of £10,941. It is well that people should know how much is being paid out in subsidy. We are all agreed that a subsidy is necessary but, in the case of 26,000 tons, the State is prepared to pay £7,425, and we are prepared to support that payment. That is the cost of subsidy on 26,000 tons at 5/9 per ton. Apparently, however, that will not do. Instead of paying £7,475 at a time of financial embarrassment, the State is prepared to pay a total subsidy of £18,416 13s. 4d. That leaves a balance of £10,941.

I do not know what line the Minister will take. He certainly gave no indication to-day and he made no attempt to get the matter straightened out. I am not interested in rings, cartels or combines, whether they be in lime or anything else. One particular point in the answer to-day is worth remembering. We were told that the maximum distance was 35 miles. The Minister stated to-day that 35 miles is the limit, except where the nearest plant is over 35 miles distant. That is the crux of this matter. The idea seems to be to wipe out the small firm, to throw the local man on to the unemployment register. When the small firms are wiped out, the 35 miles can be wiped out; when the small firms disappear there will be no more competition. Then the field will be open to the strong combine and, using the Minister's own words, where the nearest plant is over 35 miles, the subsidy still stands. Are we to continue this policy? What are we going to do about it? Are we prepared to fool ourselves by saying we believe in competition? There is no competition because it is a wellknown fact that the subsidy itself is allowed by Government decree, provided that the price per ton is not over 16/– If the rate to be charged is not over 16/– then the subsidy rate stands. I can tell the Minister that I have the facts and can get the records from the Minister's Department.

It is important to remember that because of such keen competition in the off-season a company can slash the price from 16/– to roughly 8/6. We had experience in the past of people supplying goods at prices which everyone knew were sometimes not giving a profit. The idea seemed to be to remove the opposition, remove the small firms, put them out of business and leave the big firms to do what they like. Will that be the position here? It should be possible for the Minister to consider some system of zoning. It should also be possible for the Minister again to consider the price in relation to what is allowed by the Department in connection with the costs versus subsidy.

It is not for me to say what the price of the ground limestone should be by the firm. Between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of industry and Commerce we ought to be able to hammer out a scheme which would give a fair return in regard to profit and cost on the limestone. We should then consider the subsidy. If that is not done we will have to continue paying subsidies in cases where there is no justification.

It is well for the Minister to remember that—and this comes from people in the trade—it is an admitted fact, openly stated by these people, that the profit is not really in the lime but in the subsidy allowed for the cartage of it. Therefore, the longer the haulage of the lime, the bigger the profit for the firm concerned. It is about time this matter was gone into. As I said at the start, it is essential that we allow the subsidy based on the figures given by the Minister to-day. We agree with that. What we do not agree with is a system which is wiping out local industries which in itself means that by the removal of the small local industries the large firm can then take over. The people who tell us at times how to run this country are running the limestone system very well under this subsidy allowed by the Minister.

While the Minister failed to give an answer to-day—I do not know whether or not it was convenient for him to do so—I would ask him now to consider the matter, otherwise many awkward questions will be asked here in relation to (a) all the projects for which we have not money and (b) some of the projects upon which we are throwing away money in order to give extra profits to more firms.

Mr. Corry

I agree with most of what Deputy Desmond said. We have the same difficulty in Carrigtwohill area in East Cork. I see no reason why this should not be zoned. You have a big firm, State subsidised and State owned, coming in now and commencing to wipe out the smaller industries. There are something over 100 men employed in two ground limestone plants in my area within four or five miles of me. Those two ground limestone plants are now getting the same dose. In my opinion the whole of that subsidy has been wrongly used. It was used in the first instance to subsidise C.I.E. and it is now being used in the same manner.

I should like to call the Minister's attention also to the fact that the couny council and ratepayers of Cork have to maintain the roads used by those heavy lorries. If the zoning system were adopted and enforced for the past two years we would have £1,000,000 in the funds now of the limestone subsidy instead of the £500,000, which the Minister told me a fortnight ago was all that was left. That will not last another nine months and it would not pay the C.I.E. subsidy for 12 months. That is the present position. It is about time that we closed in and zoned the areas within a 20-miles radius.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Aiken)

Deputy Desmond at Question Time to-day alleged that 40 men were to be put out of employment in one local industry to which he referred. I noticed that he gave a lot of figures but he did not repeat that in this debate.

Mr. Desmond

I did repeat it and I say now again—in two small firms, 40 men.

Mr. Aiken

With regard to the two firms to which the Deputy referred in his question. I looked up the figures and I find that in one of the firms the tonnage delivered during March and April was 27,000 in 1956 and 30,760 in 1957. Again, last year another one of them delivered 15,626 and this year, during these two months, 18,000. Therefore, if 40 men were disemployed this year there must have been more disemployed last year, because in fact, they have delivered more lime.

I will not say that it is an easy matter to settle and give a subsidy upon the delivery of ground limestone having regard to the fact that the plants in which it is produced are not spaced like the pieces on a draught board, equi-distant all over the country. You have some areas in the country which are 50 miles from any possible source of supply and you have other places where there are plenty of limestone deposits and in which crushing plants can be erected every couple of hundred yards. However, if you try to zone and give a firm a monopoly within a certain radius it certainly will not have a good effect on the price of lime as far as the farmers are concerned. Leaving the option of giving the subsidy for a certain distance and then giving no subsidy over that distance unless the farmer is more than 35 miles away from any possible source of supply, helps to keep lime cheap for the farmers in these particular areas. But in regard to the concerns referred to by the Deputy to-day, it has not reduced the output of lime.

One thing we want is to get all the lime possible distributed on land that requires it. We want to get that done as quickly as possible and, from the farmers' point of view, we want it done at the cheapest possible rate. The price which these concerns might charge the farmer in order to get the subsidy is fixed at 16/–. That was done by the Minister whom Deputy Desmond supported for quite a number of years.

Mr. Desmond

Quite so.

Mr. Aiken

In fact, however, it has been found by the firms he spoke about to-day and by others that they are prepared to sell it to the farmers for 10/–, 11/– or 12/–. That certainly represents a good saving for the farmer and it is a good thing for the country that some of the lime deficiency is being made up.

The way out of this situation is to get the farmers to spread more lime. We are spreading only about 1,000,000 tons although 2,000,000 tons are being bleached out of the soil every year. It is estimated that there is a deficiency of about 12,000,000 tons in the land of the country. That is why we want more and more lime spread.

The lime subsidy has been considered several times. When the former Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture, the late Deputy T. Walsh, took office there was no distance limit to the haulage of lime. He introduced a system which imposed a limit and that helped to save on subsidy in relation to very long hauls which, in turn, enabled the amount of money available to be spread over more tons of lime.

I am quite prepared to examine any reasonable proposition as to how this lime subsidy could be better handled, bearing in mind the fact that we want it to be sold to the farmer at the cheapest possible price. I have no fixed ideas on the matter. My mind is quite open to accept any suggestion which can be worked out satisfactorily.

With regard to those concerns to which the Deputy alluded to-day, the production of lime has gone up this year as against last year and I hope it will continue to rise. It would be particularly desirable if the output of lime from these plants would rise at this time of the year because the right time to put lime on the land is during the summer months, particularly on grassland. The heavy spreaders can be loaded up at the lime plant and when the land is dry and firm, as it is during the summer months, they can drive over most of the land in the country. It would also mean that the work at the plants would be spread out so that the lorries and the men would be employed the whole year round. Obviously, if they are employed for 12 months of the year on the production of ground limestone it is bound to reduce the overheads, spreading them over more months of the year, rather than concentrating on producing and delivering the lime in just a few months in the late winter and early spring.

So far as I can see from advertisements in the various local papers, all the ground limestone producers are giving inducements to farmers to buy ground limestone during the summer months and in the early autumn. The farmers should accept that inducement because a lot of the land badly needs to have acidity corrected and the sooner the farmers apply the ground limestone the better and the more profitable it is for themselves if they apply it at those times when it is offered cheaply to them by the ground limestone producers. As I have said, it is offered to them at a cheaper rate during the summer months. I hope they will take advantage of that offer and do something to correct acidity of the soil because that acidity is handicapping farm production.

If Deputy Corry or anybody else has any suggestions to make as to how this scheme can be better handled I am quite prepared to give it every consideration. I do not think, however, his idea of a tight zone into which no one can deliver lime except the men in the locality would have any effect other than that of driving up the price of lime to the farmer, which is something we do not want to happen. However, if he or anybody else has some scheme thought out or can think out any scheme that will have the effect of saving on subsidy and at the same time getting the lime cheaper for the farmers, I am quite prepared to give it every consideration.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd May, 1957