Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1970

Vol. 244 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Colley)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill proposes a financial reconstruction of Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta but, before dealing with the provisions in it, I should like to say something about the company itself. The manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers was a field into which private industry had not ventured, and after a great deal of study it was decided in 1961 to establish a State company to undertake this work. NET was incorporated under the Companies Act in October, 1961, with a share capital of £100, and under the Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Act, 1963, it was given £6 million from the Exchequer by way of repayable advances with interest.

Right away, it can be said that the company have been a success. The factory, which is a complex of chemical plants, came into operation in 1965. There were difficulties, outside the company's control, in bringing some of the plant into operation as early as had been hoped, but by the end of the company's year to 30th June, 1966, the plants for making nitrogenous fertilisers were fully operating and the company made sales of more than £2¼ million in that year.

The utilisation of nitrogenous fertilisers in the cultivation of grassland was increasing substantially, and, in addition, there was a demand for complete concentrated fertilisers that include nitrogen as well as other nutrients. With the approval of the Government, NET installed a plant for the manufacture of concentrated fertilisers, and later the company extended their plant for the manufacture of calcium ammonium nitrate from an original capacity of 65,000 tons to a rated capacity of 140,000 tons. In the course of this operation the nitric acid capacity of the company was increased threefold. The company have also diversified into the manufacture of liquid carbon dioxide for the mineral water trade and solid carbon dioxide—dry ice—for refrigeration of fresh meat exports. They now supply the entire market for dry ice and a substantial portion of the carbon dioxide needs of the mineral water business.

These major additions were installed by 30th June, 1969, and it is worth looking at the company's balance sheet of that date. The fixed assets at 30th June, 1969, are shown at a cost of £9 million, and after depreciation of £1.9 million, they show a net value of £7.1 million. Current liabilities exceed current assets by £0.65 million, but trade investment, reserves and balances are in excess of that amount. The gross value of the company's sales in that year was £5.9 million and, after charging depreciation of £672,000, a net profit of £582,000 was earned, leaving out the question of State interest to which I will return in a moment.

The State finance given to provide the initial undertaking and the developments to the extent that I have outlined was £6 million issued on interest as repayable advances under the 1963 Act. Under that Act also, there was provision for the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to guarantee sums that might be borrowed by the company to the extent of £1 million. That was availed of, and particulars of the amount so borrowed and guaranteed are laid annually before the House.

It has become clear that the method of financing the company provided for in the 1963 Act is not now an appropriate way of enabling the company to carry on this commercial undertaking. Possibly it should not have been done that way in the first instance. In the first place, there had necessarily to be a considerable gap in time between the initial acquisition and development of site, design and ordering of plant and so on, and the actual time when manufacture could start and sales commence. In that period money was being advanced from the Exchequer for that purpose, and interest was accumulating. It is estimated that the amount of interest that had accrued by the time operations and sales could commence was £850,000.

The nature of the fertiliser trade is also important when considering what the capital structure of this company should be. The application of fertilisers to the land is seasonal; and purchases of fertilisers from the producer, through the intermediaries, down to the user, largely follow that seasonal pattern. But the factory, for efficient production, must keep going. This in itself, apart from the question of extensions of plant, involves the company in matters of considerable financial credit. I think it will be sufficient to say that where credit has to be got for large amounts from overseas suppliers, in the normal way of trade, there can be difficulties for a company organised on a basis of £100 share capital.

For all these reasons, it is now proposed in the Bill before the House to change the capital structure of the company from one of loan capital entirely, to a combination of share and loan capital and to give the company a nominal share capital of £7½ million. Involved in this is a capitalisation of the interest which had accrued on the advances made by the State up to 30th June, 1967 and which amounted at that date to £1.212 million. It is appropriate that at this point I should say something about commitments and undertakings given in this House about this interest.

Both my predecessors and myself have given the House assurances that the Exchequer advances made to the company and the interest accruing on them were repayable by the company and that there would be no waiver of interest due. I made a statement to this effect on the Adjournment Debate on 9th March, 1967. At that time the question was raised that the financial accounts of the company did not make any provision for the charging of this interest in the year covered by the accounts, nor give the figure for the interest that had accrued from the time of the first advances. I made it clear at the time that a full and true picture of the company's financial position was given in the accounts submitted for the information of the Dáil. The balance sheet up to 30th June, 1966, showed the total advances that had been made and it carried a note that as the conditions of repayment of the advances had not yet been determined, interest had not been provided for in the accounts. In subsequent years, this note to the balance sheet included a figure for the interest accrued to the end of the year concerned, at the rates of interest on which the advances had been made, but again, no determination had been made as to how the moneys due should be repaid.

The reasons for not making a determination as to the manner of repaying the advances and interest I have given before. It would obviously have been pointless to have required repayments during the period in which the company was engaged in setting up the plant for manufacture; and immediately after, as I have said, the company was involved, and properly so, in an extension of its nitrogenous plant, the introduction of complete concentrated fertilisers and the exploitation of by-products. It would not have been in the national interest to require the company to make repayments out of its cash flow needed for the development of its business.

I now come to the provisions of the present Bill. In section 2, it is proposed that instead of being a £100 share company, the company will have a nominal share capital of £7½ million. Not all of this will be subscribed or issued at the present time, but it is there to take account of developments that may occur in the future.

Section 3 of the Bill deals with the repayable advances that have been made from the Exchequer, namely £6 million, and also with the interest that had accrued, at the interest rates on which the advances were made, up to 30th June, 1967. What is proposed is that, of the £6 million advanced, £3½ million should now be converted into share capital, leaving the remaining £2½ million as a repayable advance. In addition the interest that had accrued to 30th June, 1967, on the £6 million, namely, £1.212 million, will also be converted into share capital. Thus, on the enactment of this Bill, the company would issue to the Minister for Finance shares to the value of £4.712 million. The £2½ million advances which are not being converted into share capital would, with the interest accruing on them from 1st July, 1967, be repayable. The terms of repayment of this sum, with interest, will again be for the Minister for Finance to determine, but it may be taken that repayments will commence immediately.

I am putting it to the House that this is a reasonable way of restructuring the company's capital and of meeting the undertakings that have been given in respect of the original advances and the interest on them. The accrued interest to 30th June, 1967, and part of the advances will go to the Minister for Finance in the form of share capital that the company is confident it can remunerate by dividend. On the evidence of the company's achievements to date I share this confidence. In addition, the company will start to repay by annual instalments the remaining advances with the interest arising from 1st July, 1967. I would like to revert here to the position shown by the company's balance sheet at 30th June, 1969, which showed assets substantially in excess of the capital to be held by the Minister for Finance and the advances that will be due to be repaid to him. And on the company's capacity to service these, I refer again to the profit shown by the company for that year.

There were other undertakings given to the Dáil about this company when the 1963 Act was going through. These were that there would be no grant or subsidy assistance for the industry or tariff or quota protection. No grants have in fact been given to the industry, notwithstanding that grants have been given by An Foras Tionscal to firms in the private sector for the manufacture of concentrated fertilisers. Furthermore, there is no customs duty or quota on the importation of nitrogenous fertilisers. At one point, an anti-dumping duty had to be imposed against certain imports of calcium ammonium nitrate, but that was specifically to counter the importation of this fertiliser at prices proved to be dumping prices, and this duty was subsequently removed. In relation to complete concentrated fertilisers there was already on the tariff list, for the protection of manufacturers of compound fertilisers in the private sector, a customs duty applicable only to countries outside Britain and the preferential areas. This duty, imposed for the private sector, is the only element of protection from which the company might be said to get any benefit, and it is, as I have said, of limited application.

The company has shown itself capable of supplying its lines of fertilisers at or below genuine world prices. It has introduced manufacture of a high technology, and it gives employment to some 700 persons. It has not been subvented in any way, and I trust that the measures that this Bill proposes will be seen by the House, not as any waiver of obligations, but as a reasonable and necessary reconstruction of the company's finances.

There are some other amendments of the 1963 Act proposed in the Bill, but I think it is necessary to call attention to only two of them at this stage. Section 6 of the Bill proposes that the limit of £1 million to which the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may guarantee loans obtained by the company, should be increased to £2 million. This takes account of the increased activities of the company beyond what was contemplated at the time of the 1963 Act. There will also have been an increase in the company's costs since that time. Some of this increased facility for guaranteed borrowing will be used for the purchase of plant for the treatment of pyrites from the Avoca mines. When NET was being planned originally, it was the intention to use pyrites as a basic ingredient in the production of nitrogenous fertilisers. On the closure of the mines, NET had to work on imported sulphur instead. The reopening of the mines has led to the happy position that NET can now revert to the original proposal, at a financial benefit to them and the elimination of that much sulphur from our import bill.

In section 4 there is provision that the Minister for Finance may dispose of his shares. This is in other legislation dealing with State companies, for example, the Industrial Credit Company Acts. There is also an amendment proposed in the Schedule to the Bill relating to section 9 of the 1963 Act. Under the 1963 provision, the Schedule to the 1963 Act, which in effect provides the machinery for the State's control of the company, operates as long as the Minister for Finance holds any shares in the company or any money is due to him by the company. The amendment requires that for this schedule to continue in operation the Minister for Finance must hold at least one half of the company's shares or that there be money due to him as repayable advances or that any loan guaranteed by the State be outstanding. In drawing attention to this particular amendment I am not in any way implying that there is any proposal in sight to change this company from being a State company. In fact, as the repayable advances will be repaid by annuity over a fair period of time, State control would automatically be retained by the amendment while that was the situation. It is simply that the amendment expresses the logic of relating control to a majority shareholding, and leaves all options open in the future.

I recommend the Bill for the approval of Dáil Éireann.

Mr. Donegan

As an indication of the view, which I have expressed as shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce on behalf of my party for many years that we on this side of the House are entirely behind the Arklow nitrogenous fertiliser factory, if the House wishes—each Member is on his own in this—this Bill will pass through all its Stages in the House tonight, so far as we are concerned. That is a serious decision of our party with the purpose of indicating our support for this project and our desire to see the factory at Arklow in full operation at all times.

That brings us to the old question of whether or not there should be a nitrogen factory. There were files on the production of nitrogenous fertiliser from turf and God knows what else and eventually files on its production from pyrites. Eventually, some time prior to 1961 it was decided that it should be produced. It was decided once and for all and we now have in Arklow an industry employing 700 people which will be supported by all sides of the House. It would be, in my view, even better supported if we got the chance of being in Government than it is by the present Government.

I want to discuss the position as far as it has developed with particular reference to the financial situation of Nítrigin Éireann because this is a financial Bill. What we want in a new industry are security of jobs, preferably for men—and this industry provides employment for men—and permanency at the lowest possible cost to the State whether by way of grant or loan or encouragement in any other way of private enterprise or any other enterprise whether public, private or half-and-half. If one were to take the present cost per job in the nitrogen factory one would arrive at a figure of £12,857, I think, on the basis of an investment of £9 million either made or guaranteed by the State. I do not wish it to be taken as criticism but merely as a fact.

People outside might regard a figure like this as a fantastically large sum per worker. When I came here 16 years ago they talked of investment of £1,000 per worker but one must consider that you can find in the street tonight a lorry costing £7,000 or £8,000 and realise that, while this figure we are discussing is very high and should be noted, it is not entirely wild. Investment per worker at present, as the Minister knows, has reached a very high figure in some cases in relation to capital investment by the State and, in relation to available money from private enterprise within the State, a frightening figure, considering the number of jobs that we must provide or defend in the next ten years.

We must now discuss this Bill in relation to the past. There were recriminations and discussions as to who was for and against the nitrogen factory. The first question was: could nitrogen be produced without participation in the general fertiliser business? That business has changed considerably in the past 15 years. The farmer now wants granulated fertiliser, CCF, which is a different type of fertiliser. He is using combine drills that sow and put down fertiliser at the same time. He is not wasting fertiliser on ground that grows weeds but placing it directly under his own seed which he wants to grow more successfully. The question of whether nitrogen could be produced economically here without going into the business generally was a crucial one because the policy then—it has been referred to by the Minister—was that the Irish farmer could buy fertiliser anywhere as long as it was not dumped. This was the sort of thinking that was produced in this House by politicians on all sides for many years. Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agree-In fact the result of the practical production of nitrogenous fertiliser was to prove that it could not be done economically. To find some economic base for the immense expenditure we are discussing tonight it was necessary to form Nítrigin Éireann to go into production of CCF, a compound fertiliser that the farmers want, including not only nitrogen but potash and phosphate. This decision was made but it is correct to say that before the factory was built the indication was that it could be economic without going into this other field. The fact is that it was not economic without going into the other field and the right decision was made by the board of the company eventually to go into the production of general fertilisers.

There are people on all sides of the House involved in the fertiliser business and they know the exact position at present. The Minister dealt largely with financial matters, and with these I must also deal, but there is now a selling organisation embracing all fertiliser companies in the country and there is a rationalisation of costs of transport. If you buy from one of the other companies—we must not advertise in the House—you might get, if you were near enough, a product of Nítrigin Éireann which would not be nitrogen but might be a general fertiliser in CCF form or you might get a product made by some other company which would include nitrogen produced by Nítrigin Éireann.

The private enterprise side of the business now accept that Nítrigin Éireann exists even though they resisted the introduction of the production of nitrogenous fertiliser virtually by the State and even though they did not want it. Now the general selling of fertiliser is done through a pool which is used quite properly to reduce transport, storage and other costs. You may conclude that there is no competition. In fact, the procedure is to approach the Minister's Department and get the proper and fair price to the farmers. This is not a criticism but a statement of fact that was not in the Minister's speech. As well as that the Minister knows that under the ment a certain tonnage of fertiliser must be allowed in. I suppose the easy way the Minister could describe it if he agrees with me—and I think he will— is that he must let it in until it hurts and that the amount, whether it is 20,000 tons or 60,000 tons coming into the country of this CCF fertiliser containing the same product as Nítrigin Éireann are producing, their main line being nitrogen, is a matter the Minister has to argue about every year in order to try to keep the British people from sending fertiliser here under the Agreement.

We have a very complex selling arrangement, in which Nítrigin Éireann and the ordinary fertiliser companies are involved. I want the Minister to realise that I am not producing all this here—things he did not say—as a criticism of his Ministry, his Department, Nítrigin Éireann or anybody else. I am merely producing these things as irrefutable facts so that people will know and it can be recorded what the actual position in the fertiliser industry is today. We are in a position where the Minister must allow in a certain quantity of fertiliser, where Nítrigin Éireann is selling its products in compound form or in straight form, as we say in the trade, either directly or through private enterprise channels, where there is no competition and the question arising, as the Minister said, is merely (a) of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and (b) of definite and proved dumping and the Minister has pointed out that an Order has had to be made in relation to dumping. In relation to (a) I am aware that generally there has been a gentlemen's agreement and that people sending fertiliser here from Britain have operated on the basis that they would stop at 20,000 or 60,000 tons or whatever the relevant figure was in the relevant year.

Before moving to the financial matters in the Bill I want to discuss the question of dumping. There have been moves to limit the importation of urea. There are those who would say that urea is a complete substitute for nitrogen and is a more modern product, developed subsequent to the building of the nitrogen factory. Urea is a liquid which if one were organised for it and had tanks on the farm is in fact more easily handled than the solid product. This again produces a problem—whether or not urea should be allowed in, in what quantity it should be allowed in or whether it is in fact the perfect substitute. I do not want to go into details. Dumping does occur and is something that exercises the minds of the Minister and his advisers when a decision has to be made. What we must accept now, ungrudgingly, is that, at a cost of £9 million either in guaranteed money or money supplied, there are 700 employed in Arklow, that the probability is that our cost of nitrogen is as competitive as anywhere else in the world, if one takes out dumping, and that on the private enterprise side two very big industries, if one talks about them as individual units, have made a sale arrangement with Nítrigin Éireann; that Nítrigin Éireann is here to stay, that it should be fully supported by the House and that the problem exercising our minds should be how the finance should properly be divided and how best to provide safeguards for the nation.

I hope I have not shocked anybody by the figure in relation to capital expenditure that was produced. The fact of these big figures must be faced.

Financial reconstruction was mentioned in the first sentence of the Minister's speech. Unfortunately anyone in business at present whether he is selling candy at the corner or in big business has been faced with financial reconstruction over the last five years. It looks to me from the stage of inflation at the moment that further financial reconstruction will occur all over the country from top to bottom. Rationalisation and financial reconstruction are marvellous things so long as one is not rationalising oneself. However, they are a fact of life. We see various companies seeking more capital in times of scarcity for high capital industries. It is not surprising that even though the colossal amount of £6 million was provided in Arklow more is needed. The question that arises is whether it is being provided in the right way.

There are two ways of giving money to a company. One is by way of loan or debenture and the other is by taking shares. A shareholder, whether of preference or ordinary shares, whether it is the Government or a private individual or a company, is in the position that he may not get a distribution of the profits. There are two kinds of debentures. There is the kind where if one does not pay it this year one must pay if the situation improves and there is the ordinary debenture which involves a fixed payment of interest and principal. There is the two-way procedure here: of the £6 million originally provided £3½ million is issued in shares and £2½ million is a continuing advance. In the situation this is probably as good a balance as could be provided and the decision of the Minister and the Minister for Finance was the right one. One would hope then that the £2½ million would be funded by the repayment of principal and interest to be fixed by the Minister. I suppose one cannot object to that although I hope we will be told what the rate of interest and repayment will be. In relation to the share capital our position is that at £3½ million there is no stricture on the company to repay to the Minister for Finance or the State one penny unless it is making money and that in respect of accumulated interest not repaid £1,212,000 shall again be included in the share capital now being taken up by the Minister or a total of £4,712,000. That £4,712,000 is in and we hope it will give a return to the Government.

I will say something now that I have noticed in the recent past and that may in fact reassure people and make them realise that it is not so easy to repay or to make money. The Industrial Credit Company which is an institution we all revere and want to support has just produced the first dividend for 40 years. The figure was 2½ per cent. In the building up of industry here there were troubles and investments were made which did not come up to scratch. Whether, in perspective, it was right or wrong to establish the nitrogen factory in Arklow the position now is that we have got quite a large company, that the factory is in operation, that we are now reconstructing the financial affairs of the company and that the question of a dividend must be considered. At this stage it would be too optimistic to hope for a large, if any, dividend for some years. The company is in its formative years. If people were naïve enough they might expect a company of that size to produce a profit in three to five years but if one studies the reports of such companies one finds that with the exception of absolutely gilt-edged production by a company like Imperial Chemicals which control sale and purchase, such has not occurred. A very sage businessman here has said that it takes 25 years to make an ordinary business. Therefore, in relation to this £4,712,000 if there is a balance sheet that indicates that things are going well and if there is a small payment of dividend or in fact no dividend but a good situation, this would be as much as I would ask for for a number of years.

However, one would hope as the years pass, as this company takes its place with private enterprise in the fertiliser complex in this country, there would come from this investment as high a percentage dividend and return as from private enterprise concerns. That is the load the directors and executives of Nítrigin Éireann must bear. That is the message that should go out to them from this House; that we want to see them on a level with private enterprise fertiliser companies in a reasonable period of time. We are not demanding something that is going to mean they produce a paper profit, an operating surplus—which is what they have been operating on without depreciation up to the present—and having produced it, the Minister, or his successor, would be back here in five years time looking for more capital moneys because they had distributed too much by way of profits or because of loan repayments to the State.

However, we must face up to the fact that the £6 million was not sufficient. If we wipe out the debts—and the sum of £1,212,000 has been a figure in our national debt up to the present—and if we write this in as share capital, it is going to move from one side to the other and will change our national debt to the extent of £2 million in the statistics. If that happens we must say "We want to see a return on this, to see a good economic commercial situation".

The figure of £9 million includes the question of the guarantee by the Minister of the borrowing of the company. As I understand the company's balance sheet and profit and loss account, which I admit I have not with me at the moment, because with my labours in Dublin South-West——

Mr. Colley

In vain, I hope.

Mr. Donegan

On that point the Minister and I will agree to disagree. However, I am afraid I have not the file with me now and I must speak from memory. The last time I read the profit and loss account the position was that the company had borrowed far more than the £1 million guaranteed by the Minister and we are now regularising the situation to some extent. The figure in my mind was £1,689,000 borrowed as it appeared on the last balance sheet. They borrowed the money and we are merely regularising the payment to ensure that the lenders of the money are safe because the Minister is guaranteeing it, which means it is gilt-edged. Therefore, the extra borrowings mean that an extra amount of capital money is being injected into the company— in fact the major part of it has already been injected.

In relation to these advances one thing is certain: the first for payment of interest will be the lender and, on the terms of loan, the first for payment of principal will be the lender—he will come before the State in the payment of any dividend. He is guaranteed payment by the Minister and I presume that will guarantee repayment on the terms on which the loan was issued. We must, therefore, realise that the lenders of the £2 million which is now needed will come first and the question of any dividend or repayment of loan or interest on the loan—that is, the other £2,500,000 which remains as a loan from the State—will be second. This is a matter that should be mentioned here in the general discussion on this Bill.

The question then arises as to what has been the performance of the company to date. There is the question of the length of time it takes to set up a business of this sort. In a ready-made business, such as the production of cement, the product is needed for building and we know that it will be made and sold and private enterprise is operating at the same time, but the position here is that it takes many years to get to that stage. The figure given by the Minister on 30th June, 1969, was £582,000, not taking into account the interest repayment to the State. I have not got the figure of what interest was paid to other people during the financial year but I take it that it would be the same as what used to be the operating surplus of other semi-State bodies. The term "operating surplus" irritated people in this House to such an extent that many semi-State companies have taken it out. That was the right thing to do because there is no point in saying you made a profit if you did not pay the interest.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy will appreciate that in comparison with a normal commercial undertaking, the capital structure of the company is such that it has been operating on an all loan capital, as distinct from investment capital.

Mr. Donegan

Yes. I know it has been changed in relation to the £4.712 million into subscribed capital.

Mr. Colley

That is right.

Mr. Donegan

The difference being that it is capital subscribed by the State. My view is that we face this situation with an existing complex employing 700 people, with the responsibility of providing our farmers with fertiliser at the lowest cost possible and of the best quality. We do this in a situation where the Minister has price-fixing machinery and control and in the context of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and anti-dumping legislation. This whole complex maelstrom of pulls and pushes will produce difficulty for the Minister, but if we can harness private enterprise and Nítrigin Éireann to produce fertiliser of good quality at the right price for our people we shall be doing a valuable job. Reference to the financial structure and the history of the company must be made because it is an honest appraisal and one that should be recorded in this House and supported in every way and as far as I am concerned I am going to support it.

Any restraints on imports the Minister may have to apply should be applied only when it is proved that the fertiliser here is being provided to farmers at genuine world prices. The phrase "genuine world prices" is, as the Minister and I know, very difficult to apply. I know that in the complex overall structure the Minister will make mistakes. He may even be asked questions by me about the mistakes he makes. But that does not deter me from saying that I do not see any other way of ensuring continuation of supply of fertiliser to the Irish farmer except with the full support of Nítrigin Éireann, with this House acting as a watchdog to ensure fertilisers are supplied at the cheapest possible rate while, at the same time, ensuring a good financial return to the Government which is, after all, the shareholder and principal guarantor. That is the way I see it.

I trust I have clarified the position of my party on this matter. If the Minister wishes, I want to say that we will give him all Stages of the Bill, subject to discussion on the amendments circulated today. We hope to see more employment provided in Wicklow and a better service for the Irish people with, at the same time, no loss to the private enterprise sector which has been doing the job for the past hundred years. I am glad of an opportunity to refer to the private enterprise sector. I am not so stupid as to pretend they welcome the arrival of Nítrigin Éireann. The fact is they do not. They would be acting out of character if they did. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that. But, now that Nítrigin Éireann is an established fact, it is only right to put on record the fact that the private sector enterprise is co-operating with Nítrigin Éireann in the sale of their products and the private sector is also subject to the price control exercised by the Minister. Provided the private sector continues to develop side by side with Nítrigin Éireann, we will have done a good job. That is the way I want it to be.

The future looks very rosy as far as production is concerned because, in the future, everybody will be using more and more fertiliser. Those already using fertiliser in large volume will increase their use. Those who are not using fertilisers will go in for fertilisers. More land will be pressed into production because of increasing land values on the Continent and in Britain. It will become more economic to drain land and bring it into production and that will call for the use of more and more fertilisers. Let us hope we will have a balanced expansion on both sides and that no action on the part of the Government will prejudice employment in the private sector which, if my figures are correct, is many times greater than the figure of employment in Wicklow. Let us hope we will have a good balanced fertiliser industry giving the very best service possible to the farmer and, at the same time, giving a fair return to the State just as those who invest their capital in the private enterprise sector are entitled to a fair return on their investment.

Dr. O'Donovan

I was rather amused at Deputy Donegan's remark that he was prepared to give the Minister all Stages tonight because I saw the Minister look at the clock; it was a quarter past ten.

Mr. Colley

And then look at Deputy O'Donovan.

Dr. O'Donovan

I occasionally try to needle the Minister, but not tonight. There is no hope of the Minister getting all Stages tonight. The Minister knows that and so do I.

Mr. Donegan

We made the gesture.

Dr. O'Donovan

If the Deputy had looked at the clock, as the Minister did——

Mr. Donegan

I was tired after Dublin South-West.

Dr. O'Donovan

I hope the Deputy did good work there.

Mr. Donegan

I thank the Deputy.

Dr. O'Donovan

I have a few remarks to make. I used to do a good deal of work with State companies and this project was like King Charles' head. There were only two men in the Oireachtas ten years ago who spoke publicly and frequently in favour of this project: one was Deputy Frank Aiken and the other was myself. Anyone who cares to look at the Seanad Debates will find that I strongly favoured this project. I will not now damn it with faint praise. I am not going to come in here in sackcloth and ashes and calculate how much per worker it cost. This is not that kind of proposition, with respect to Deputy Donegan. I have not got the figures but the Minister can probably tell me what imports this saves. That is the important thing. I do not at the moment know—I will have the figures tomorrow—what will be the turnover of this company. For all I know it may be 50 or 60 per cent per annum on the £6 million. This is the real return. I have objected at times to certain propositions but, if the Minister analyses my objections, he will notice that, when I object to huge figures invested per person employed, there is really no saving effected at the other end.

I will have to come back again now to another remark of Deputy Donegan's. He and I are old friends so he will, I know, take my remarks in good part. He said the private enterprise sector has been doing this job for one hundred years. They have like hell! The man who did the really worthwhile job for this country after the last war was Lieutenant-General Michael Joseph Costello. It is only right that that should be acknowledged in this House. I remember well when he did the job. The Minister may have been too young to have the same interest in the event as I had at the time, but Lieutenant-General Michael Costello put a spanner in the works of the international fertiliser cartel. The files on all this in the Department of Industry and Commerce must be simply massive. The work done by Lieutenant-General Costello in 1947 or 1948 must be acknowledged.

Mr. Colley

I have the figure the Deputy wants. Gross sales last year were almost £6 million.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister could say he got 100 per cent on his capital. This kind of game is very intriguing. I take it the Minister understands the idea I am trying to convey. A very interesting thing happened: Deputy Aiken was made Acting Minister for Finance; he demanded all the dusty files on the project in the Department and he re-activated the project. That shows how interested he was in the project. I think the year was 1952. I had left the Civil Service. Deputy Aiken re-activated the project. The man who damned it with bell, book and candle was the erstwhile leader of the Fine Gael Party. To hear him talk about how useless nitrogenous fertilisers were to the farmers and how the farmers had gone off them—I notice Deputy Donegan smiling, but this is true.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 5th March, 1970.