asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state whether the Government purpose taking steps to bring about a settlement of the present dispute between the Beet Growers' Association and the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company.

Though the price to be paid for beet is primarily a matter for settlement between the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company, Limited, as buyers and the Irish Sugar Beet Growers' Association as representing sellers, the Government, as the Deputy is aware, has intervened in this matter on several occasions. The only modification of their terms for the purchase of beet of this year's growth which the company made as a result of these interventions was to agree to pass on to growers part of the advantage which the company would derive in the event of sugar prices advancing. The company definitely intimated by letter, dated 17th instant, that they had no offer to make other than that set out in the contract form which they had issued to farmers. In these circumstances, it would appear that no useful purpose would be served by further intervention on the part of the Government, unless both parties primarily concerned request such action.

In view of the magnitude of this question and the extent of the area affected, would the Minister not consider that compulsory arbitration should be adopted?

Compulsory arbitration could not be adopted.

Why not? Is there not a fair wage clause in the Beet Sugar Subsidy Act?

We could hardly discuss that issue by way of question and answer. We could not discuss by way of question and answer why compulsory arbitration could not be adopted.

In view of the importance of this question, if the Minister for Agriculture would be willing, I would like to raise it on the adjournment. I would like to urge upon the Government the necessity for taking steps to compel the factory to submit this matter to arbitration, as the growers have already intimated their willingness to accept arbitration.

If the question is an important one, do you think you could do justice to it on the adjournment?

Would not compulsory arbitration require legislation?

Yes, in the absence of agreement.

It is not, therefore, a suitable matter for discussion on the motion for the adjournment. I think the Deputy will agree with that.

Would the Minister not think it well to provide Government time, either to-day or to-morrow, for the discussion of this question? I think there are Deputies on all sides interested, and this might give an opportunity of seeing whether some solution could not be found.

My own view is that a discussion here would not help matters.

Are we to understand that there is hope that, through the Government, something further will be done?

The Government's position is stated here. We have already intervened a number of times, and there is no use in intervening again unless at the request of both parties.

The position is rather similar to that in a Labour dispute. If the Government's intervention as mediator is not successful, we could only discuss the proposal for compulsory arbitration. Then it would be difficult to keep the matter in dispute from coming into the debate.

Could not this be raised as a question of urgent public importance? I prefer to raise it on the Estimate, but I understand that the Estimate, will not be forthcoming until another fortnight.

Perhaps the best thing for the Minister or the Deputy, or any other Deputy interested, to do is to see me as to what could be done by way of Debate in the Dáil. The matter, it seems to me, could not be raised even on the Minister's Estimate, because the Minister is not responsible for the price the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company pays the growers or the price the growers demand. Therefore the matter can hardly be raised upon the Estimate, nor can it be raised as a matter of urgent public importance unless the responsibility of the Minister is clear. If the Minister had a clear responsibility, opportunity could be found to debate the matter, but if the Minister is not responsible it cannot be raised as a matter of urgent public importance.

The general question of the prevention of trades disputes has been raised here already as a matter of urgent public importance. Could not this question come under that category?

No; I do not think so.

Surely no Minister has responsibility to prevent trade disputes?

I cannot agree that there is such a precedent as that alluded to by the Deputy.

How could a question like compulsory arbitration in an industrial dispute be discussed in half-an-hour?

In view of the fact that there are other means than those suggested by Deputy Derrig whereby this dispute could be brought to a successful issue, could not the Minister provide a suitable occasion on which the matter might be freely discussed by all parties?

There is an estimate for a Beet Sugar Subsidy. We asked some time ago that it should be brought up and that we should discuss the whole situation. I think the Minister should take that Vote either to-day or to-morrow. It will have to be debated some time and it might as well be done now while something effective can be done.

That is the whole point. My view is that it would be inadvisable to discuss that now. The discussion would do no good, but would do harm. Therefore, I am not prepared to take the Estimate now.

Would the Minister tell us if he has any hope of a settlement?

I have nothing to add to the answer given to Deputy Davin. That is to the effect that, having already intervened on more than one occasion, there is no point in my intervening now unless I am asked to do so by both parties.