Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Mar 1936

Vol. 60 No. 14

Sugar (Control of Imports) Bill, 1936—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of the Bill is to provide new arrangements for the regulation of the imports of sugar. At the present time, the imports of sugar are controlled by the quota system under the Control of Imports Acts. That method of control is becoming more difficult to operate in consequence of the decline in each year of the quantity of sugar which it is necessary to import, apart from the fact that it causes an appreciable amount of work in the Department of Industry and Commerce in the fixation of quotas, the examination of applications for licences, and the issuing of licences, etc. The object of the control at present exercised under the quota system—that is, the restriction of the amount of sugar imported to the figure which corresponds to the gap between home production and home requirements—can, in our opinion, be best achieved if the work of controlling the imports under the present system by the Department of Industry and Commerce is ended and authority given instead to the sugar manufacturing company, called the Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta, to import whatever sugar may be required. The imports of sugar, as I have said, will continue to decrease and it is obviously more economical to have such imports dealt with by a single organisation like the Sugar Manufacturing Company than by a number of small importers.

The proposed change in the method of controlling imports has the approval of the interested parties and, in fact, representations were made to me by the Wholesale Tea Dealers' Association, which speaks for all the sugar importers in the Saorstát, with a view to having the control of sugar imports transferred to the Sugar Manufacturing Company. In the view of the sugar importers, as represented by the Wholesale Tea Dealers' Association, the new arrangement will prevent the dislocation of present trading methods. Even if the position should arise, as it probably will arise next year or the following year, that the Sugar Company is in a position to manufacture the whole of the requirements of sugar of the Saorstát, there will still be cases in which, for some special reason in connection with some process of manufacture, it might be necessary to use a particular class of imported sugar.

If the present system of control were to continue in operation it would mean that, in order to enable a particular importer to bring in a specified quantity of sugar for a special purpose, a quota would have to be fixed in which all other registered importers could share. Any such importer, when he received his licence, could use that licence for the purpose of importing sugar of a class manufactured by the Sugar Manufacturing Company, and, consequently, the disposal of the company's stocks would be retarded and the financing of these stocks would be rendered somewhat difficult.

In this Bill it is proposed to give the Executive Council power to make an Order prohibiting the importation of all or any specified varieties of sugar during a specified period. During the period that such prohibition is in force power is given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the application of the Sugar Company, to give to that Company, and to that Company only, a licence to import specified quantities of particular varieties of sugar. It is intended that the Company will make no profit on the importing and merchandising trade which it will thus be given, inasmuch as there is power to charge the Company a fee for the licence, and that fee will be arranged so as to ensure that the Company will have no profit, allowing, of course, a reasonable margin for handling the imports and for overhead expenses.

The price of foreign sugar fluctuates. At present, and for some time past, foreign sugar, plus import duty, has been slightly less than the price at which home-produced sugar is available. During last year, for example, in the period in which home-manufactured sugar was not available, that difference in prices existed, but the difference in prices between imported sugar, plus customs duty, and the home-produced sugar was not sufficient to enable a reduction in price to consumers to be effected. The smallest reduction in price is a farthing. The difference was not sufficient to enable a reduction of one farthing in the price to be made, and so the difference became an increased profit for the importers. If that situation should exist in future the difference will be taken up by the licence fee for the benefit of the Exchequer and not for the benefit of the Company. The price of sugar, which has been increasing on the world market recently, may move forward to a point at which the imported sugar, plus duty, will be slightly dearer than the price at which home-produced sugar is made available. In such circumstances a fee will not be charged.

Last year the production of the sugar company was about 30,000 tons short of the total quantity required to meet all the needs of the Saorstát. This year the total production will be about 18,000 tons short; that quantity will have to be imported over some period in the middle of the year. We consider that one of the advantages which it is believed will follow from the adoption of this better method of controlling imports, will be that a uniform price of sugar will be maintained all the year round and that will operate in respect of the commercial users of sugar in a manner which will ensure that one manufacturer will not have any undue advantage over another. If, for instance, a manufacturer of jam purchased home-produced sugar and had it in stock for the purposes of his factory, he might be at a disadvantage compared with another manufacturer whose stock just ran out at the period when the home-produced sugar became exhausted and who was permitted to import sugar at a reduced price. The advantage of the uniform price throughout the year will be obvious to anybody.

I do not think the Bill needs any further explanation. It is a simple measure, designed particularly to effect that change in the method of controlling imports. In future, instead of licences for the amount required to supplement our production being issued to persons on the register of sugar importers, they will be issued only to the sugar company. That change is made at the request and with the consent of the sugar importers, who believe it will lead to an improvement in the present position. I recommend the Bill to the Dáil.

General Mulcahy

I am afraid I cannot agree with the Minister when he says that very little need now be added to what he has said. I am very glad to see Deputy Corry in the House, because the proposal made here is one that requires to be discussed from many aspects. One is as to the point of view of the person who has to buy sugar as a very necessary item in family provisions. Another point of view is the farmers'. While I might say some things from the farmers' point of view on this particular subject, I think Deputy Corry has been saying things from the farmers' point of view that ought to be repeated in this discussion here. The Minister's proposal is to hand over the whole sugar situation in this country to the sugar company and to pull down the blinds completely on the people here as to what the sugar situation is outside this country.

When additional taxes were being put on sugar in order to give the sugar company here greater control over the purse of the sugar-buying person 12 months or so ago, the explanation given was that sugar was being dumped here. One aspect that concerns me is that we are paying £1,203,000 more across the counter for our sugar than our people would be paying if they were buying their sugar across the counter in Northern Ireland. I base that statement on an estimate that the sugar consumption in this country is about 104,000 tons. We have been told by figures published in the Irish Trade Journal that 66,031 tons of sugar were produced by the sugar factories in this country in 1934-35. If we take the acreage now being devoted to beet, 57,288 acres— that was the figure for last year—then the sugar factories are going to provide this year 84,000 tons of sugar. I am basing my estimate of the cost over Northern Ireland's payments on the fact that we will probably import 20,000 tons, leading up to a consumption of 104,000 tons.

We want to know why we should be paying that amount and who is getting the benefit of it. The Minister will tell us that the farmers are getting the benefit of it. Deputy Corry will have quite a number of long-drawn-out replies to that. Someone else will tell us that farm workers are getting more money as a result of the sugar beet growing. I think if there are any members of the Labour Party present in the House while we are discussing the price of sugar, they will be able to say three or four things on that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Bill before the House deals with the transfer of the control of the imports of sugar to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann Teoranta. Such transfer may react on the price of the home-grown product, but the policy of growing beet and manufacturing sugar here does not arise for discussion. That policy has been decided by the Oireachtas. If the Deputy maintains that the proposals in this Bill will react unfavourably on home prices, he is entitled so to argue.

General Mulcahy

The Minister said the proposal contained in this Bill is for the purpose of closing a gap——

Mr. Lemass

I said nothing of the kind.

General Mulcahy

I beg the Minister's pardon. The Minister implied that the intention of this Bill was to put the sugar company into the position that, with the least possible trouble to his Department, they could bridge the gap that exists at present between the amount of sugar production here and the amount of the sugar requirements for the whole country.

Mr. Lemass

The importation of sugar is prohibited at present.

General Mulcahy

It is allowed in under quota.

Mr. Lemass

It is prohibited save under licence.

General Mulcahy

If we are prevented from discussing what is happening—the excessive amount of money we are paying for sugar at a time when a proposal is put down with the intention of preventing imported sugar coming in here and handing over completely into the company's hands both the price that should be paid to the farmers for their beet and the price that shall be paid by the sugar-buying public for their sugar—then I must say it is an astounding position with regard to order and I am sure the ruling of the Chair must be given under some kind of misunderstanding. On a point of order, I would put it to you, Sir, that in discussing this Bill I am entitled to discuss the gross income the farmer gets for the growing of beet; the gross income that goes to the agricultural worker in this country for the growing of beet; the amount that is spent on cartage; the amount that comes in to the revenue in excise duty; the amount that comes into the revenue in Customs duty; the amount that the company get by way of subsidy, and the total amount of money that our people pay across the counter; together with the actual effect of those sugar-beet proposals on the growing of crops of a particular kind. Would I be in order in discussing that whereas in the Province of Leinster between 1931 and 1935, there was an increase of £18,079 acres of beet, to the extent of 13,357 acres, that was a substitution for mangolds and for turnips——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not clear whether the Deputy is putting a point of order or making a speech.

General Mulcahy

I am putting a point of order. The whole finances of sugar purchasing and sugar production by this company, I submit, are in order, and where are we going in the matter of our prospects of continuing to produce beet. I submit that we are in order in doing this, Sir, by reason of the fact that this proposal actually does set out to put the company into the position of controlling in every possible way everything in regard to sugar, as well as to prevent us from knowing or feeling anything about the outside world price with regard to sugar. I should like to have your ruling on that.

Mr. Dillon

On a further point of order. May I submit, in view of the fact that this is a proposal to grant a complete monopoly to the Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, it is relevant for us to discuss the capacity shown by that organisation to administer so much of the sugar market as they already control. When we come to decide whether the rest of the sugar market should be placed in their safe keeping, may we not argue that as a result of the expenses involved in the production of beet sugar by Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, and the resulting distribution of the proceeds of the sugar manufactured amongst farmer, labourer, consumer and company, we are not satisfied to hand over the remainder of the sugar market to this company for administration, inasmuch as we think it could be better administered and more economically administered and more advantageously administered from the point of view of the consumer if it is left in the hands of those who are already handling the sugar market, which it is now proposed to hand over to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann. There are two specific points.

General Mulcahy

I am not quite clear whether it was the Minister who raised this point of order or whether it was you, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was the Chair.

General Mulcahy

I was going to appeal to the Minister that a wide discussion was desirable.

Mr. Lemass

Before you rule on that, a Chinn Comhairle, I want to raise a point of order. I gathered from your ruling that the price of sugar could be discussed on this Bill. This Bill has no relation to the price of sugar. It relates only to the method of the control of importation. Under the existing method, the quantity of sugar to be imported is determined by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Cosgrave

As the Minister has so lucidly expressed this observation, I should like to say that this Bill does definitely impose a further cost on the price of sugar. The Minister has in this Bill a clause which says that he may charge a certain fee for a licence. That is in addition to and not in substitution for any previous charge. The Excise duty is already there. The Excise duty on sugar manufactured in this country stands at 4/8. The Customs duty is 21/-. The duty is added to by reason of the cost of the licence, which is included in this Bill. Further, there is a point which has already been made by Deputy Dillon, and to some extent by Deputy Mulcahy, that a monopoly is now being conferred by reason of this measure, and whatever competition there was between the imported sugar and the sugar that is manufactured here, that competition now ceases.

Mr. Lemass

There is no competition.

Mr. Cosgrave

There was this competition, that the average price, as Deputy Mulcahy has said, for sugar delivered on the quays in Dublin was 7/6 per cwt., and the average price of sugar manufactured here is 16/4 per cwt. in addition to that. Once this Bill passes, the sugar company has not alone a monopoly, but it has the right to fix any price it pleases. There is no control over it; the Minister has taken none and exercises none.

Mr. Lemass

In any event, that matter is dealt with by a different Act.

Mr. Keating

Is the Minister aware that farmers are entitled to 1¾ cwts. of pulp——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. A rather alarming prospect has been opened up by Deputy Mulcahy and to a certain extent by Deputy Dillon. As stated, this Bill deals with one specific thing. There was an import of sugar controlled-by quotas. As I understand this Bill, it is proposed to transfer the control of import now to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann.

Mr. Lemass

No. The control of import will remain with the Minister. The actual quantity will be determined by the Minister. It is proposed that licences will be issued to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann.

An Ceann Comhairle

Licences will be issued by Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann. The question of Customs duty does not arise. Neither does the policy of beet growing, which is based on legislation and cannot be discussed on a measure of this kind; as existing legislation cannot be criticised, being subject only to repeal by express motion or a Bill. The production of beet, the policy of manufacturing sugar, and the price the farmers obtain, do not arise.

Mr. Dillon

May I submit that this is a proposal to give a monopoly to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann. That is agreed between both sides of the House. May I not argue that Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, from its record in the manufacture of beet sugar, is not worthy of confidence in the administration of a sugar monopoly, and may I not advance reasons to convince the House that such a monopoly should be withheld from that institution?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy would not be precluded from making the statement, but would be precluded from reviewing the whole transactions of Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann.

Mr. Dillon

But surely I must be allowed to argue that as the result of Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann's administration of that part of the sugar market which has been secured to them by legislation they are charging too much to the consumer, paying too little to the producer, and that there are thousands of pounds being lost? Could I not so argue, and then go on to say: "If this be the case in regard to the sugar they are actually producing, what must we anticipate if we give them the remainder of the market and allow them to conduct the same transactions with regard to that?" It is a matter of fundamental importance to the Exchequer and to the consumer. and to the producer in this country.

General Mulcahy

I will try to help you as well as I can, Sir, and you can stop me if I am going off the track. I am quoting, from the Irish Times of the 15th October, 1934, a statement which was made by Mr. J.B. Connell, Vice-Chairman of the Irish Sugar Company:—

"Their prices included the delivery to over 30 of the most important distributing centres in the Free State, and this should enable the sugar to be sold retail in these centres at 3¼d. a lb. They had information as to the retail price in several important towns in the Free State, and those prices varied from 3d. to 3½d. per lb... There appeared to be no reason why the retail price should be more than 3¼d. in any of the towns to which the Board proposed to deliver."

Now that is a responsible official of the company, but the Minister tells us to-day that the retail price of sugar is 3½d. per pound. Taking it, on the average, that the retail price of sugar sold in the country is 3½d. per pound— and the Minister must be aware that some of the sugar used is sold for 3¾d. per lb., and that there are places where sugar is actually sold at 4d. per lb.——

Mr. Lemass

Or given away for nothing.

General Mulcahy

At any rate, it is necessary for us to get some information as to why it is necessary for people to pay so much for sugar and where the money that they do pay goes. All that is now in the hands of the company. That is the proposal. So that across the counters in this country people pay £3,397,000, assuming that they consume 104,000 tons of sugar. That is to say, the people are paying £1,213,000 more than they should pay if they bought their sugar under Northern Ireland conditions. That figure is very much too high. The Minister is the only person in a position to examine how the unnecessarily high charge comes about.

My reason for discussing this thing in the House is not that I can tell the Minister where the unnecessary high charge is, or who is getting some of this money they ought not to get but that it is necessary to try to do it. It took two years' systematic discussion of the housing statistics with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to put this House and the country in the position that they knew how many houses were really being built in the country and what the country would really have to pay for them. It is my view that the country and the House should know the exact number of houses built and the exact amount of money they cost. If that is so, it is quite as important that the country should know the exact amount of money being paid over the counters throughout the country for one of the greatest necessaries of life. It is important also to know where that money goes to when we arrive at the figure. It is for that reason, Sir, that I want to know from the Minister what are the amounts that are going in particular directions, and in case it might be imposing too much on the Chair, I will not elaborate as to where these figures come from.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest that the Deputy and other Deputies will have an opportunity—possibly on the Estimates—of going through money matters.

General Mulcahy

I should like to draw attention to the fact that when I asked the Minister 12 months ago what was the amount of money spent on machinery for the three factories being erected and the country from which the machinery came, the Minister stated that it was not in accordance with practice to disclose information relating to the business of an individual company. Now, under this Bill, once an unfortunate woman pays 3½d. for a lb. of sugar across the counter, everything that happens after relates to the business of an individual company, and there is no way in which one would be entitled to discuss how much of that 3½d. goes to the farmers; how much of that money goes to the farm labourers, how much of it goes to the railway, and how much of the money goes to Customs and so on. It was for that reason that I thought this was an occasion on which I might get that information. I am going somewhat on these lines until you, Sir, pull me up. I will try to be as reasonable as possible. I suggest that of that £3,397,000 that our people are paying a sum of £812,000 goes to the Revenue, a sum of £780,000 goes for sugar brought into the country and a sum of £1,372,000 goes to the company, and that out of that £1,372,000—and this is based upon the 1935 crop of 57,388 acres—the farmers get £700,185, there is paid in agricultural wages £243,440, in cartage £155,750 and in wages to the factory workers, according to the statement made by the Minister, £160,000. We do require to get clear what are the exact gross amounts going to the farmers, what are the exact amounts going to the labourers in the field, what are the exact amounts going to the labourers in the factories, and whether there is not an excess in the spending of money by the company, and whatever direction that could be spared, and whatever direction that could be reduced, so as to reduce the price of sugar here. I hope Deputy Corry will be able to discuss from his side of this Bill the amount of money there is going to the farmers.

An Ceann Comhairle

He will not.

General Mulcahy

Well, Sir, I think it is a great pity, and it is not any credit to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that he should come before the House here to close up completely the whole sugar situation and put it in the hands of the company in this particular way without giving the House an opportunity—which I cannot see it is going to have on any other occasion—of discussing the sugar-beet business generally. The promises to the farmers are completely belied by the facts. The result of that now is that in one area in the country where sugar beet was particularly brought in to assist, it has become entirely a substituted crop. I find it difficult to proceed, Sir, if I cannot discuss the wages that are being paid in the sugar factories.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no desire so to curtail discussion as to make the debate unreal. But the wages paid by the factory to the farmers and the acreage under beet are not relevant.

Mr. Dillon

I take it if a Deputy fairly finds it impossible to discuss the distribution of the sugar funds, the Chair will allow a Deputy——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair should not be asked to give a hypothetical ruling.

General Mulcahy

I want to tell the Minister that I completely give up the case, because he is tying up the whole sugar business to-day in the hands of the company, so that the ground is completely falling from the company. The only thing that is keeping the company in existence to-day is the enormous amount of money that is being taken out of the pockets of the people in the purchase of sugar, and that money is going in a way that is of no assistance to the people.

Mr. Dillon

This is the Bill designed to transfer to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann a monopoly of the sugar trade of this country. I desire to represent to this House that the Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann is not fit to have a monopoly of tallow candles much less of sugar. My submission to the House is that as a result of the past record of Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann the consumer in this country has been plundered, that the farmer in this country has been plundered, and that the farm labourer has been plundered as well, and that the only persons who are getting anything out of it are the Exchequer and Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann. When I have made that case I think I could turn with confidence to the House and ask them to forbid the transferring of any greater share of the sugar business of the country into the hands of a concern like that. The points made by the Minister are all very well, but that at the moment, and under the circumstances, we are bound to argue that the responsibility rests with Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, and on that basis I propose to proceed. Before this insance scheme of beet sugar production was foisted upon the country, sugar produced in the markets of the world yielded to the revenue a very substantial sum, and was sold to the consumer at a moderate price, considering the requirements of the Exchequer at the time.

Mr. Lemass

At what price?

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will have an opportunity of making his own speech. He does not want to hear me now, but he is going to hear me. He can ask any question he likes, but he need not try any rough stuff at this juncture. He is at his old game, but it will not work. Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann took over the supply of sugar for the people here. As a result of that we are confronted with the situation in which that corporation informed the Government and the Government informs us that they could not carry on if they did not get a subsidy in respect of sugar amounting to £16 3s. 4d. per ton on sugar produced. When we came to make an estimate, based upon these figures, we discovered that the scheme that this firm suggested was one demanding that for every acre of beet the Government had to go out and buy the beet, that they had to put £7 into each waggon with each consignment of beet, and that, having made the present of the beet to them, and £7 per ton per waggon for taking it into the factory, they then had to tell them to go out and sell the produce for what they could get for it. That is what is described as an achievement in this country that should command the confidence of the people, and that should secure a monopoly of this produce for the company. The Minister may ask: why find fault with the company? They were required to do this and they got a subsidy to do it. They were supposed to supply labour on the land and to give the farmer an economic price for his beet——

Mr. Lemass

I submit, on a point of order that the Deputy is deliberately evading the ruling of the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let the Deputy finish his sentence.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister says, "They were not bound to do this, but I made them do it, and because of that they have been labouring under disabilities, and because I put this upon them they now ask for a monopoly", my answer is, I deny these things. I say it is because of the inherent incompetence of the corporation that we are faced with this situation. I am prepared to say the corporation failed to discharge any of their undertakings. And I say if they are given this monopoly they will fail to discharge the undertaking they give now as they have failed to discharge the first undertaking they gave to manufacture sugar in this country. I say that the Labour Party were forced into agreement by the plea put up by the Minister that this firm were going to provide a great quantity of agricultural labour and pay a fair agricultural wage. Deputies in the Labour Party will remember that. They said they recognised that this was going to put a burden upon the consumers, but at the same time it was a scheme in which the consumer would get a great deal back in the form of social service. What are the facts? Fortunately a calculation has been made of the exact quantity of labour provided by this company. A very exhaustive examination was made of this question by one of the most eminent research bureaux in the world. These figures were never contradicted either by the Department of Statistics or even the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and God knows the Minister would deny anything, whether it was in the Synoptic Gospels or anywhere else, but he did not dare to deny this. Each acre of beet provides for agricultural labour in its production, from the sowing of the seed to the despatch to the factory, 24 man days per acre. The Labour Party will remember that since the Minister came into office agricultural wages have fallen steadily in this country, until now they stand, on their own claim, at 21/3 per week. I challenge that figure.

An Ceann Comhairle

If it was not in order for Deputy Mulcahy to discuss agricultural wages on this subject, it is not in order for the Deputy to do so.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to discuss them. All I am discussing is that, having given this undertaking, the company had not kept it. I say that a company that has given an undertaking and has not kept it is not likely to keep an undertaking if it gets a monopoly. They have not worked in accordance with the undertaking given by the Minister on their behalf when he introduced his original Bill. They received in aid originally £24 per acre, but the labouring man gets £4 5s. out of that. Surely it is a public scandal and something which this country should be ashamed of that in activities in respect to which the Government provides £24 per acre the unfortunate man standing up to his knees in mud and filth and crawls on all fours up and down the ridges thinning beet gets only £4 5s. The company gets the rest, but he does the work. That is all he gets. This is something that the Labour Party here and Deputy Corry and a few more members of the Fianna Fáil Party have been confronted with and asked to recommend to the House. Perhaps Deputy Corry will say if the labourers are not getting all they should it is not his job, but that it is the job of Deputy Corish to look after. He will say: "We represent the farmers."

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order. I submit again that this House decided to proceed with the proposal for the erection of beet factories and to establish Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, and it is not possible for Deputy Dillon at this stage to initiate a debate upon the advisability of that act.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister's contention is right, that the policy of production of sugar from beet grown here cannot be canvassed now.

Mr. Dillon

Certainly not, and I would not desire to discuss it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Directly or indirectly.

Mr. Dillon

Directly or indirectly, but I do desire to discuss, and have so far proceeded to do so with your assent, that Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann gave this House certain undertakings in return for certain concessions which the House gave. It now proposes to ask for further considerations on foot of further undertakings. I argue that the original undertakings have not been kept and that the concessions secured from the House have been secured by fraud and misrepresentation——

Mr. Lemass

By whom?

Mr. Dillon

——and I object now to any further concessions being made available to this corporation on similar undertakings, because I apprehend that they will prove to be as fraudulent and as illusory as those on foot of which the original concessions were got. I have demonstrated that the Labour Party fell into a trap and that their votes were secured by what has transpired to be a misrepresentation. I now submit that Deputy Corry and the more gullible members of the Fianna Fáil Party fell into a trap, and I am now exhorting them to be on their guard and to resist a similar trap. Deputy Corry may argue that "If the labourer did not get it, we got it, and if the Labour Party fought as hard to secure a redemption of the undertakings given to them as we fought to secure a redemption of the undertakings given to us, Labour would have no reason to complain."

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Corry would be out of order in so arguing on this measure.

Mr. Dillon

I have no desire to answer an argument that would not conform to the rules of order. My submission is that I got undertakings; that in these undertakings I have been deceived, and I decline to accept any further undertakings from the same source.

Mr. Lemass

I am disturbed by what you have just said, Sir. Apparently you anticipate that if other speakers follow Deputy Dillon on the same lines they will be out of order. If that is so, surely Deputy Dillon is out of order also?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon was suggesting a speech for Deputy Corry, which speech would have been out of order.

Mr. Corry

I hope that we will be allowed to reply to Deputy Dillon. That is all we want.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Corry does not want to be allowed to talk on this subject at all.

Mr. Dillon

My submission is that Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann has withheld from the producers of so large a proportion of the subsidy they are getting from the State that they are not fit persons to whom to entrust a monopoly of the entire sugar industry of this country. They are getting from the State at present £24 for every acre of beet they handle and they then can sell the proceeds to the public for whatever price they can get for it. The farmers of this country are getting out of that £24 approximately—and this is putting it at its very best— £17 11s. 3d., and out of that sum they have to pay the labourers the wage which I have given as £4 odd per acre, so that in fact the farmer has for himself for his crop about £13 and out of that he has to carry the crop to the station to put it on rail.

This whole business in which the beet sugar factory has been engaged is a ramp. It is plundering the Exchequer; it is plundering the consumer; and it is plundering the producer of the raw material of this industry. My submission to this House and to the country is that it is a monstrous thing to give the whole sugar trade of the country into the hands of a corporation of this kind. I would argue without hesitation that far from giving a complete monopoly these factories ought to be wound up immediately, save for this consideration, that a very large number of farmers and labourers in this country have, at the instance of the Fianna Fáil Government, made themselves dependent upon this crop.

An Ceann Comhairle

Of course, the Deputy realises that he may not argue on this Bill that the scheme should be abandoned.

Mr. Dillon

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not do it.

Mr. Dillon

No, but what the Minister is going to say in reply to me is "The Deputy has preached a philippic against this whole business. Does he want it wound up?" That is what the Minister is going to say and he wants to say that when I have sat down.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy does not want to anticipate every possible reply, whether in or out of order.

Mr. Dillon

Not every reply, but I should like to anticipate the more dishonest questions which the Minister is in the habit of asking, because he, together with the President of the Executive Council, does not like being answered. They like to reserve for their final observations the most dishonest part of what they have to say, and what the Minister is going to say at the end of this debate is "Does Deputy Dillon want the factories closed down? Does he want these farmers deprived of their market for beet?"

Mr. Lemass

I do not care a rap whether you do or not.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister does not like that gambit to be opened before he has made it. I think I am bound to ask your indulgence, Sir, to deal very briefly with that aspect of the situation before it is thrown off by the Minister at the end. The Minister will ride off the debate on that heroic question, and the answer is perfectly simple. It is: Certainly, except for one consideration.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy definitely may not argue for the closing down of the beet sugar scheme.

Mr. Dillon

I do not argue that at all, but I say it would be acceptable if it did not involve great individual suffering for the farmers and labourers.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not argue it, hypothetically or otherwise.

Mr. Dillon

We shall reserve the discussion of the details for the Minister's Estimate but I fix the Minister with notice that if he proposes to ask that dishonest question in his concluding remarks, I reserve my right to answer it in extenso on the Minister's Estimate.

Mr. Lemass

I promise not to ask Deputy Dillon that question. I would not be in the least interested in his answer.

Mr. Dillon

I thought you would not, but I took care that you would find it difficult to answer it, and unprofitable.

Mr. Lemass

Very unprofitable.

Mr. Dillon

It has been further argued with a view to securing the consent of the Labour Party to this extravagant proposal, that even if that portion of the sugar fund which was made available to farmers and farm labourers was trivial in comparison with the cost to the State of the whole scheme, the Labour Party should seriously consider the enormous advantages that would accrue to the towns of Tuam and Thurles, the Cork factory and the Carlow factory. They were told that the factory wages there would run into a very large sum of money. In fact, the factories employ about 2,600 persons during the manufacturing season and about 540 persons in the non-manufacturing season. The factory wages for 1935-1936 and normal succeeding years may be estimated at approximately £160,000 per annum. This whole scheme is costing this State approximately £1,372,000 in subsidies. Of that the labour fund going to the workers in the factories amounts to the figure that I have mentioned, £160,000 per annum.

General Mulcahy

It is questionable if they get that.

Mr. Dillon

I prefer to put the best complexion I can on the case of Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta, so I say we may reasonably anticipate that the operatives in the factories will get £160,000. It may be doubtful whether the figure would be as big as that, but that is the best that can be said. It is upon that figure that the argument is based, that Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta, is an invaluable alternative market for Irish agriculture and is a great social service, and that the administration of the sugar fund by Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta, has amply justified this company in asking us to repose further confidence in them by way of giving them a complete monopoly of the sugar trade of this country.

From every aspect from which we can approach this question Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta, has shown itself to be a swamp into which money and labour has been poured without any proportionate benefit to any section of the community. We have lost time, production and money in this experiment, which was so aptly described by the Minister for Finance as an egregious white elephant. To this white elephant is now going to be committed the material for growing fatter and more fecund than it has proved to be at the expense of the sugar consumers of this country.

Bad and all as that is, it seems to me that there is inherent in the Bill other very formidable dangers. It is extremely difficult to get this House to see the perils that lie in the way of vesting a wide discretion in the Minister for Industry and Commerce unless one can point to the general system which he has pursued in the administration of similar powers. It is proposed to give him the right under Section 7 (2) to attach to any licence issued by him for the importation of foreign sugar certain particular conditions. One is "the times within which and the places at which sugar may be imported under such licence." That gives him the absolute right to confer as a bounty on any particular port in this country a very valuable slice of import trade. If the Port of Sligo is not sufficiently subservient to the Department and its officials no sugar will come through that port. If Deputy Corry wants a few votes in Cobh the tip can be passed to Deputy Corry: "Get a deputation to call upon Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta——"

General Mulcahy

Where they pay 3¾d. for sugar instead of 3½d.

Mr. Dillon

"——and we will see if something cannot be done whereby to direct that the sugar will be sent in through the port in which you are interested." Boundless powers of corruption are immediately vested in the Minister and as I hope to demonstrate on his Vote, will be effectively used in accordance with the standards of morality set by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for his own Department.

Mr. Lemass

It is a wonder I have not grown horns yet.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister has not grown horns, he has grown a hide. It has been a source of great comfort to him during the last few years. I suggest that he should undertake the growth of another between this and the introduction of his Estimate—he will want it. Under paragraph (b) he is entitled to impose a condition "limiting such licence to sugar manufactured or produced in a specified country." We used to have in this House the archaic theory that Oireachtas Eireann is the ultimate authority for the transaction of international agreements. But it appears from this document that we are now going to hand over to the Minister and the permanent officials of his Department the negotiation, confirmation, and execution of international agreements of a trade character. Under this Bill we give the Minister complete authority to enter into a tacit agreement with any other State whereby he will buy all his sugar requirements from it in exchange for some consideration such as possibly providing a home to which individuals like Deputy Corry might be deported. I quite agree that you will want to take more than 80,000 tons of sugar from any particular country before they would contemplate a permanent residence for the Deputy for East Cork. We have to bear him for nothing.

Mr. Corry

Keep at it. We will soon have you in the asylum.

Mr. Dillon

Now we come to (d) "the manner in which and the routes by which sugar imported under such licence shall be brought to Saorstát Eireann." This is being put in because the Minister discovered from his experience of the Spanish trade agreement that there are certain advantages to be derived from having the power to impose such a condition. If you are importing a certain quantity of a certain commodity from a certain country and you can impose a condition on the importer that he must bring it in along a certain route in a certain ship you can put into the pocket of a particular trading company or ship operating company a very valuable consideration.

If you arrange, for instance, that Spanish oranges which are to be brought into this country must be shipped direct from Spain to Saorstát Eireann, you make it impossible for anybody to ship oranges but one individual who will ship a cargo, if there is no regular steamer service between this country and Spain. So that the person who gets the shipping of the cargo gets the advantage. Supposing there are two competing for that privilege, one of whom is subscribing generously to the Fianna Fáil funds, and the other subscribing to Fine Gael funds, one of whom is the white-haired boy with Deputy Briscoe and the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the other is the enfant terrible in respect of that Minister and his Department, whom do you think will get the licence to import the cargo?

Mr. Lemass

The Bill provides for the issuing of a licence to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann only.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister, in the fullness of his political magnanimity, say that although one individual is subscribing handsomely to the Party funds, and is prepared on any occasion, however inappropriate, to get up and give him a boost, to preach the Lemass ballyhoo at any street corner, he must do without this concession?

An Ceann Comhairle

If Cómhlucht Siúcre Eireann, Teoranta has the sole right of importation, the question of the Minister does not arise.

Mr. Dillon

That is the way the Minister likes to put it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has to be guided by the Minister in such cases.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Chair is not to believe everything the Minister says?

An Ceann Comhairle

We will want to be clear on that. In the interpretation of a measure the Chair must be guided by what the Minister says.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Chair is not going to maintain that every statement that falls from the Minister's lips is to be taken as gospel, because 90 per cent. are untrue, and demonstrably untrue? The Minister puts it to the Chair that the only person who can get a licence to import is Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta. Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta has no ships on the high seas and the Minister can give a licence and then prescribe, under paragraph (d), "the manner in which and the routes by which sugar imported under such licence shall be brought to Saorstát Eireann." The Minister will try any trick on the Chair or anybody else in order to get a verdict in his favour. With great respect, I submit that the Chair ought to know him well enough by this time. That is his whole object. The Bill is drafted to create the impression that it is a disinterested endeavour to put the whole industry in disinterested hands. But the Bill is peppered all over with provisos and yet, when the spoils come to be divided, the voice will be the voice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister proceeded to deal with the fees he intends to charge under a licensing proviso and he says quite blandly that it is not intended the corporation should have any profit on transactions in sugar which they may enter into under the powers contained in this Bill. Everyone expected the Minister was going to announce that during the period when foreign sugar was to be imported the consumer would get a material advantage from the cheaper sugar. Not a bit of it. Having levied a tax for home-made sugar on the consumer, having levied a revenue duty of 4/8 on the producer, the Minister now announces that on all imported sugar he is going to collect 21/- Customs duty, and, in addition to that, he is going to levy a sum equal to the profit which sugar importers used to take, for the benefit of the Exchequer. Does Deputy Corry remember the happy day when he was hoping to reduce taxation by £3,000,000 per annum?

Mr. Corry

I wish I could put a tax on blatherers.

Mr. Dillon

Did he ever think he would be sitting behind a Minister and would be flogged into the Lobby to support a Bill designed, not only to levy taxes and Excise and Customs duties, but to gather the profits of merchants who traded in this country and who out of these profits gave employment in the past, and transfer them into the Exchequer as an additional source of revenue? Since the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act we have become accustomed in this country to taxation by decree, which has been a great and a growing abuse, which has been fraudulently and scandalously used by the present Executive Council, and which has been used to the betrayal of every undertaking they gave to this House when the Bill was passing through. Ought that not be a warning to us before we confer exactly similar powers under this Bill on the Minister for Industry and Commerce? The Minister told us that this measure was designed for no other purpose than to collect such profits from Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann as would be too small to pass on to the consumer. His object, he said, was that where there was a potential profit of less than a farthing it should be raked into the Exchequer for the benefit of the community.

Mr. Lemass

Who else should get it?

Mr. Dillon

The consumer.

Mr. Lemass

But it is too small to pass on to the consumer.

Mr. Dillon

The oleaginous and unscrupulous proposal made here is that this profit should be passed into the Exchequer. But we heard nothing at all about what would happen if there was a profit of more than a farthing. Will the Minister now tell us, if there is a profit of more than a farthing, that the consumer will get it? Does he undertake to see that the consumer will get it?

Mr. Lemass

I have asked the Deputy a direct question.

Mr. Dillon

When I ask the Minister if he will pass on the larger profit to the consumer, there is nothing but dismal silence and vermiform wriggling.

Mr. Lemass

I have asked the Deputy who should get it?

Mr. Dillon

The consumer.

Mr. Lemass

But when the consumer cannot get it, who should get it?

Mr. Dillon

I have asked the Minister when the sum is larger than a farthing will the consumer get it and he has not replied to that. The answer to the Minister's question to me is very simple. If you have a profit of one-eighth of a penny, you can accumulate it for the first half of the import period and during the remaining half of the import period let it be added on to the further profit and be ultimately given to the consumer in the form of a reduction of his sugar cost.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy wants——

Mr. Dillon

I will not be drawn into impolite reflections on the Minister's incapacity to understand. Where there is a profit of one-eighth of a penny, under the Minister's scheme it is to be drawn into the Exchequer. Under my scheme it would be placed in a fund—and this is a scheme which I throw out to the Minister; I have not had an opportunity of considering it for even three minutes, but yet I will certify it to be workable—which would be accumulated over the import period and ultimately given by way of reduction to the consumer.

Mr. Lemass

The small margin of profit on 10 per cent. of the sugar requirements of the country?

Mr. Dillon

My scheme would provide that, instead of the profits going into the Exchequer for the purpose of extravagant waste by the Government, they will go into the pockets of the hard-pressed consumers, whose condition the members of the Labour Party habitually deplore; it will go into the pockets of the gentlemen who are now earning 21/- a week and who used to be earning 32/-; it will go into the pockets of those people from whom the Minister proposes to take unemployment assistance——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should deal with the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has a fair idea of where the money will go under my scheme, as compared with where it will go under his scheme. I will press him again to answer my question: Does he undertake, where the profit is more than a farthing, that it will go to the consumer, or does he intend to put it into the Exchequer, having falsely represented that he has no intention of doing so? One of the purposes of the Bill is to rake into the Exchequer additional revenue in the well-proved Fianna Fáil method, in such a way that it will appear neither in the Supply Service Estimates nor in the Central Fund Services, nor in any other sphere where its true character can be held up before the people and discussed, as it ought to be, in this House.

It may be argued that it is waste of time to direct the attention of members of the Fianna Fáil Party to these evils. It may be argued that the standard of morality on the Fianna Fáil Benches is so low that they see nothing wrong in the Minister coming here, with the approval of the President of the Executive Council, asking for the powers conferred under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act as a weapon to combat an attack on this country by Great Britain and then using them for the purpose of imposing tariffs affecting the ordinary economic life of the country. Their sense of public rectitude may be so low that they do not recognise the dishonesty and the subterfuge resorted to by the Minister who inserted in that Act a proviso that any duty imposed would have to be reviewed in this House within eight months of its being made and subsequently made an Order under that Act for the purpose of venting a private spleen on an individual company and repealed the Order before the time when it should come up here for discussion.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Deputy referring to his own company?

Mr. Dillon

I am referring to the Central Agency, Limited, and J. & P. Coats, one of the subscribers to that association from which the Minister took thousands of pounds under an Order made under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act and then sought, by allowing it to lapse, to avoid the discussion that took place in this House and vigorously contended, on a point of order, that it was not relevant to legislation to discuss it at all.

Mr. Lemass

It certainly is not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

It is relevant to show that powers of this character cannot be given to the Minister with any degree of confidence; that his undertaking that this power is to be used solely for the purpose of collecting such sums as would represent less than a farthing a pound on sugar is not worth the breath that was taken to give it. This proviso is designed to collect into the Exchequer all the revenue he can grab, and will be so used if he is allowed to get away with it. I say that those conditions which it is in his power to attach to licences issued to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, and which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), subsection (2), Section 7, can and will be used in a way which very few Deputies in this House anticipate. I say such powers should be vested in no individual Minister. I say he should not have the right to give, by his ungoverned volition, valuable considerations to any individual citizen of this State. I do not care whether he is a Minister of the Fianna Fáil Government or a Minister of the Fine Gael Government, such transactions are calculated to destroy public morality in this country, and ought to be definitely put an end to. I say that a transaction of an analogous character has taken place. I say that under the Spanish trade agreement shipments of oranges have come in, and an order has been made to-day that oranges must be shipped direct from Spain to Saorstát Eireann, and may not be imported indirectly even if it can be proved that they are of Spanish origin. That order is made under a power strictly analogous to the power conferred by Section 7 of this Bill, and they are powers which should be enjoyed by no individual Minister whatever.

The whole scheme out of which this proposal arises is a delusion and a fraud. It has cost the community an enormous sum of money, and it appears that it is going to cost them infinitely more. I object most strenuously to a monopoly being given to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann in connection with this business. I consider it is creating a most undesirable precedent, and only leaves us one very short step away from the worst form of insolvent Government enterprise in connection with the sugar production in this country. I urge on the House most strongly to reject this Bill; to stand for free trade within the Saorstát in sugar supplies, for the benefit of the consumer. I urge on the House most strongly to put in hand at the earliest possible opportunity the reform of existing conditions which will make it economically and socially desirable to wind up the whole beet sugar scheme, and provide the farmers of this country with a more profitable method of employing their land and enabling them to make out of their land more than Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann has ever made available for them or for the labourers whom they employ in the production of this commodity.

Mr. Corry

This amazing genius over there who has spent the last two hours on this job has charged his leader, Deputy Cosgrave, with being insane. I really do not know by what cuckoo means he succeeded in getting in there beside Deputy Cosgrave, but "this insane scheme," as he called it, of growing sugar beet was first foisted on the country during Deputy Cosgrave's régime here. When we hear Ministers here called dishonest, called thieves, and everything else, for two hours, I do not think I would be going too far wrong in stating that this "insane scheme" was first foisted on this unfortunate country for the purpose of sweetening a very sour seat for the late President of the Executive Council; that the farmers and labourers of Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Waterford and the other counties were to pay £25,000 a year in subsidy to the farmers of Carlow to keep a sugar beet factory going in County Carlow for the benefit of the late President of the Executive Council.

General Mulcahy

How much are they paying now?

Mr. Corry

We will come to that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Bill.

General Mulcahy

Would you allow him to say what they are paying now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must deal with the Bill and nothing else.

Mr. Corry

We were told that the Labour Party fell into a trap, and that Deputy Corry fell into a trap. Who were the people who did fall into the trap? The deluded Blueshirts of Cork County, who, on the advice of and with the motor car driven and paid for by Fine Gael——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the Bill. The Deputy must come to the Bill or discontinue his speech.

Mr. Corry

I am dealing, a Leas Chinn Comhairle, with the charge that was made here about this trap, and I am dealing with the price—about which we have heard for the last two hours— that the farmer is being paid for his beet.

General Mulcahy

Will you deal with that?

Mr. Corry

That is just what I am dealing with.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The policy of beet-growing does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Corry

No. But what I am dealing with is the price that the farmer is getting for beet. That has been dealt with here by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon for the last two hours.

General Mulcahy

I was not allowed to deal with anything under the sun.

Mr. Corry

You know nothing about it anyway. Why do you want to deal with it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The profits which are derived from the growing of beet do not arise on this Bill either.

Mr. Corry

I know the profits do not arise. What I am dealing with is a definite statement that was made here of the actual amount of money drawn by farmers from the Sugar Company. I do not wish to deal with it at any great length, but I do want to state that some deluded farmers down in Cork refused to grow beet during the first year on the advice of the Fine Gael organisers in the country. Those deluded farmers, at the very period that the beet-growers' organisation were fighting for a good price for the farmers for their beet, were rush ing in with letters to the Sugar Company offering to grow beet at 30/- a ton. If the farmers are not getting as good a price as we would wish them to get to-day, that is the reason.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must deal with the Bill.

Mr. Corry

At least I am not going to take two hours to do it. There is one particular matter on which I should like to hear from the Minister in connection with this. A certain excess acreage was grown by the farmers, in spite of the sugar company and in spite of the losses that the farmers were sustaining in growing it. A certain excess acreage was grown last year. The Sugar Company refused to accept that acreage of beet into their factory. They refused to convert it into sugar. I should also like to point out that in the particular area of the Carlow sugar factory the acreage under beet had to be very much cut down last year. Most of the farmers in that district who previously grew nine or ten acres of beet were cut down to four or five acres. I suggest to the Minister that the 18,000 tons short in the supply of sugar could be very easily produced in this country. If that were done there would be no occasion for this Bill at all. To my knowledge the farmers are only too anxious to grow the acreage of beet required to supply the country with all the sugar required. They should be allowed to do so. An addition of a couple of thousand acres in each of the areas supplying the four factories would practically make up the amount of sugar to be imported.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy direct my attention to the section of the Bill which deals with increasing the area under beet?

Mr. Corry

I am pointing out that there should not be occasion to give these licences to the sugar company in face of the fact that the company can easily get the extra acreage grown in this country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not relevant to the debate.

Mr. Corry

Surely it is as relevant as some of the things that we have been listening to. If it is not, I do not know what it is.

Mr. O'Leary

That is the vote of censure on the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that Deputy Corry is the only Deputy who has approached and dealt with the Bill at all in a relevant manner.

General Mulcahy

Might I ask the Minister if his reason for thinking so is because Deputy Corry is expressing a very different opinion on the sugar company from what he expressed this time last year?

Mr. Corry

Any time Deputy Corry wishes to express an opinion he will express it and he will not be prevented by the hired thugs Deputy Mulcahy has about him.

General Mulcahy

And he will not express it now as he did the last time when he gave the sugar company a flea in the ear.

Mr. Corry

If the Minister instead of bringing in this Bill would make representations to the sugar company and get the acreage under sugar beet increased there would be no necessity for this. In that way he would obviate the need for importing sugar at all. We heard a lot from Deputy Dillon about the imports of sugar and the amount of money involved in it. I know that the farmers supplying beet to the sugar factory last year got something over £300,000 for the beet supplied. Of course that is nothing. It is no use to them because it was not paid by John Bull. If this money came out of the tail of an old bull it would be all right but because it came out of an article produced in Ireland and consumed in Ireland it is no good.

Mr. O'Leary

How much are the poor paying for it?

General Mulcahy

How much went to labour and to agriculture?

Mr. Corry

How much went on subsidising Deputy Mulcahy's harebrained schemes for ten years? How much did he pay John Bull for the 18-pounders that he used against his comrades?

Mr. O'Leary

You are paying John Bull still. The President has admitted that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry must come to the Bill.

Mr. Corry

Yes, as soon as Deputies conduct themselves.

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Corry did not tell us how much the poor are paying for this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry is entitled to make his speech without interruptions.

Mr. Keating

Then he ought to make his speech and not start abusing people.

Mr. Corry

In the year 1931 this little country paid £976,000 to some foreigners to manufacture sugar for them, along with £250,000 in subsidies to the Carlow farmers to get them to vote for Cumann na nGaedheal at the elections. elections. This year that £976,000 is being kept at home.

General Mulcahy

It is a lot more than that.

Mr. Corry

If the people of this country are paying a lot more for sugar they are paying it to the unfortunate farmers that Deputy Mulcahy says are being ruined. The Deputy should have no objection to the farmers getting the money considering the case he has been making here.

General Mulcahy

How much did the farmers get out of it?

Mr. Corry

I suggest to Deputy Mulcahy, in all seriousness, that his action on this Vote is misrepresenting the view-point of the Deputy on other occasions. The Deputy says the farmers are ruined. But on a famous occasion here the Deputy endeavoured to lead his unfortunate henchmen into the Lobby on the matter of the butter subsidy so that, if he were able to succeed, his unfortunate followers in the country would only get 2d. a gallon for milk.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry will deal with the Bill.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dillon, on this Bill, spoke about Spanish oranges and sending eggs to Spain.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He made a passing reference to Spanish oranges. I am not going to allow this discussion to be enlarged.

General Mulcahy

Will he tell us how much the farmers got for their beet while he is telling us how much we have to pay for the sugar subsidies?

Mr. Corry

I was informed nearly three hours ago that I would not be allowed to go into that matter. I hope to have an opportunity of discussing these matters when the Estimates come up. I hope Deputy Mulcahy will be here then and that he will not, like Deputy Dillon, run away after he speaks a lot.

General Mulcahy

Tell us about the beet.

Mr. Corry

I will tell the Deputy about that and I will tell him about the 18-pounders. As the matter stands I have very little entirely to say on this Bill.

Mr. Brennan

That is quite evident.

Mr. Corry

Up to the present I have been replying to irrelevant statements made here for the past three hours— things that were altogether outside this Bill. I am suggesting to the Minister a means by which he could greatly curtail the import of sugar here. There should be no occasion whatsoever for importing any sugar for the farmers of this country have already proved that they are prepared to grow the acreage of beet required. That opportunity should be given to them. I leave it at that. I am sure that the Minister who has given us three new beet factories here to produce sugar will——

Mr. Curran

White elephants.

Mr. Corry

I see no occasion for pressing this matter further, but I hope that since there is still time this year to increase the acreage it will be increased, and I hope that we will have no occasion for having a Bill of this description brought before the House in the future.

Mr. Lemass

I find it difficult to discuss the various statements made by the speakers who participated in this debate, because most of their statements were entirely out of order. I know they made those statements despite the ruling of the Chair that they were out of order. Very few of the speeches made dealt with the Bill. The Oireachtas in its wisdom decided that the beet sugar industry should be promoted in this country. I am prepared to discuss now or at any other time the wisdom of that decision. For the purpose of this Bill we must recognise that the decision was made that sugar factories were to be built here with the intention of producing sugar for all our requirements. That was done. But for the time being, and only for the time being, these factories are not producing sufficient. There is an existing deficiency which must be made up by imported sugar. The only question that arises is by what method we are to control that import of sugar. It is controlled at the present time. Under the Control of Imports Act quotas are fixed from time to time for periods stated in each Order. These quotas represent the amount of sugar which, in our opinion, must be imported to supplement home sugar produced in order to meet our requirements. Each quota is divided up between the sugar importers on the register who get licences for a certain quantity of sugar to be imported. Under the authority of these licences the registered importers bring in the total quantity required. That is the present system.

We are proposing to change that in a manner contemplated by the Bill, so that in future the only licence to import the quantity of sugar necessary to be imported will be issued to the Sugar Company—Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann. That change is made for two reasons, because of the administrative difficulty of operating the present system and because the quantity being imported is too small to permit of dividing up the import satisfactorily. Because of these things it is proposed to substitute this new system for the other. In that connection a communication was addressed to the Secretary of the Sugar Company by the Wholesale Tea Dealers' Association of Ireland, which is incorporated with the sugar merchants' Association, stating that "after very careful thought and taking into consideration the many difficulties that would arise if free import of sugar was allowed to all registered importers during the short interval"—that is to say, the period during which Irish sugar is not available—"to say nothing of the complete dislocation of the present-day trade arrangements that would result, I am asking you to place before the Minister a strong request that your company act as sole importers during the interval in question and continue to supply the various firms with sugar on the same basis as at present existing." That is what the registered importers themselves ask. The only reason why this Bill is required is because their request could not be granted without legislation because, as the law stands, the Irish Sugar Company cannot be given a licence to import sugar. We might have got a voluntary arrangement so that new legislation would not be needed, but as the law stands the Sugar Company is not empowered to get that licence and, consequently, we have this legislation.

As to the criticism of Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon, it was complete, unadulterated nonsense. They indulged in a lot of wild talk which was entirely irrelevant. I never heard a greater lot of clotted congealed nonsense handed out by any Deputy than was uttered by Deputies opposite on this matter. We were told that there was a fund which represents the total amount paid by the Irish consumer for sugar, and that the only people who get anything out of that are the Irish Exchequer and the Irish Sugar Company. What does the Irish Exchequer get out of it? The Exchequer gets a small revenue, smaller than it ever got previously from sugar. What did it get from sugar in 1931? Does Deputy Mulcahy know what the revenue got from sugar in 1931 was, or does he care?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

The amount now is about one-quarter of what it was in 1931.

General Mulcahy

In Customs duty and Excise?

Mr. Lemass

From sugar, whether imported or home-produced, the revenue is 25 per cent. of what it was in 1931.

General Mulcahy

What is the amount in figures?

Mr. Lemass

I cannot give the exact figure. The Deputy pretends to be concerned because the price which was 2½d per lb. in 1932 is 3½d in 1935, but does the Deputy know what the price was in 1931. If sugar was sold here in 1932 at 2½d it was because this Government reduced the price by removing the increased duty on sugar imposed in the previous year.

General Mulcahy

An increase that was to go to the farmers.

Mr. Lemass

Deputies opposite are very concerned now about the price of sugar. They are concerned because they are in opposition. All this hypocrisy and humbug which has always constituted the policy of the Party opposite constitutes their policy on this occasion also. They are wailing for the poor woman who has to pay 3½d a lb. on sugar but they did not wail much for her in 1931. What advantage is the Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann getting? What is this company? It is a company set up by the State, all the ordinary shares of which are held by the Minister for Finance as trustee for the Irish people. Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann gets nothing out of this; it all comes back here for the benefit of the Irish people. Every penny paid in dividends by that company on its ordinary shares goes into the Exchequer. This corrupt, malignant monopolistic organisation which Deputy Dillon has talked about has been set up by the Government. The shares are owned by the Government and the profit goes to the relief of taxation. If there is a profit the benefit goes to the Irish people and not to a little group of sugar importers. I submit that is very desirable. The variation that can take place between imported sugar and the price of home produced sugar will be very small. It can never reach the figures Deputy Dillon suggested. In that event imported sugar at 6/- or 7/- per cwt., would have to be reduced by 2/4 per cwt., and that is not going to happen. Last year the benefit of that margin between the prices went to the importer. If there is a margin this year it will go to the Exchequer for the benefit of the Irish people.

We have had this question of the price of imported sugar raised here frequently in the past. CzechoSlovakian sugar could be delivered in Dublin and sold here if there was no excise duty at 1d per lb. In CzechoSlovakia they pay 6d. a lb. for that sugar in order that they could sell it here at 1d. We could get the immediate benefit of that if we were prepared to close down our factories and turn beet growing land back again into grass and buy imported sugar at 7/- a cwt.

General Mulcahy

Back from turnips to mangels.

Mr. Lemass

We can do that not merely in relation to sugar. We can do it in relation to every other commodity. We can buy Argentine beef more cheaply than we can grow bullocks; we can buy butter from other countries more cheaply than we can produce it here; we can buy mangolds and turnips more cheaply than we can produce them here. Why should we grow any of these things if we can buy them more cheaply? That is the philosophy of the Opposition. There is not a single item produced in agriculture or industry in this country which we could not buy more cheaply somewhere. Is it their view that, because of that, we should produce nothing and buy everything? That is a pleasant prospect to hold out to the Irish people. Sugar is being sold here at an economic price, and Deputies opposite will agree with me in that if they agree with my definition of an economic price, as a price that yields a fair return to the producers of the raw material, a fair wage to the workers employed in the industry and a fair profit to the company engaged in it.

Mr. Finlay

The Minister does not think that the present price for beet is fair?

Mr. Lemass

I think the present price is a fair price.

Mr. Finlay

You know nothing about it.

Mr. Lemass

We have Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon telling us that the sugar company has tricked the farmers, had tricked the Labour Party and had tricked the members of this Dáil into agreeing to the sugar scheme——

General Mulcahy

Ask Deputy Corry.

Mr. Lemass

——because of the benefits that were to be conferred on the farmers. Deputy Corry obviously knows more about it than Deputy Mulcahy.

General Mulcahy

He knows more about it than he said to-day.

Mr. Lemass

He is aware of the problem which the sugar company has with the farmers—the problem of excess beet, the problem arising from the fact that the farmers are growing more beet than they have contracted to grow and more beet than the sugar company want them to grow.

Mr. Finlay

What is the wage paid to labourers on the land growing beet?

Mr. Lemass

We will have this question of the wages paid to agricultural labourers brought forward in the near future for discussion here, and we will see what the policy of the Deputy and his Party will be on that occasion.

Mr. Finlay

At the present price, they can pay no wages. Is the Minister aware of that?

Mr. Lemass

At the present price of sugar beet, we can get so much beet grown that the sugar company has to take punitive action to prevent farmers from growing more than the company requires.

General Mulcahy

Did you hear that, Deputy Corry?

Mr. Corry

Yes. Blueshirt farmers cutting their labourers by 5/- a week because de Valera was in office. Do you want to hear any more about it?

Mr. Lemass

In any event, I agree with the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that this question of the wisdom of the decision which the Oireachtas took to foster the sugar beet industry is not relevant to this debate. I contend also that the administration of the beet sugar company is not relevant to the debate. The beet sugar company has been remarkably efficient. We have had Deputy Dillon talking about its incompetency. Deputy Dillon, of course, is always glad to befoul any Irish enterprise. What has happened? The Irish Sugar Company which constructed these new factories established a world record. I defy Deputies opposite to find anywhere a new enterprise like that, involving the establishment of factories as large as these factories, and the installation of equipment as intricate as the equipment of these factories, which was in production 12 months after the preparation of the plans for their establishment was undertaken. It was an achievement, and engineers and scientists all over the world have paid tribute to the extraordinary expedition and efficiency with which the Irish Sugar Company established these factories and got them into production. It is only in this House, from members of the Party opposite, from people like Deputy Dillon, that we get these rotten slanders, these allegations of inefficiency and these efforts to blacken and besmirch Irish enterprise and Irish industry.

Mr. Finlay

And when the first factory was established it was a white elephant.

Mr. Lemass

So it was, at the time. Deputy Mulcahy talks about £1,000,000 subsidy paid to keep the four factories in production. In 1924, they paid £1,000,000 subsidy to keep one factory in production. It was a white elephant. It was the most incompetent and inefficient scheme ever started in any country, and the first thing this Government did was to terminate it by buying out the company they were subsidising and handing over that factory to the control of a company, the shares of which are owned by Irish people.

Mr. Cosgrave

Where did the Minister get the £1,000,000?

Mr. Lemass

What was the subsidy?

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister will find it in the Estimates.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Deputy state what was the subsidy? £1,000,000 is the amount mentioned in the Bill introduced here in 1924 as the subsidy.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister is just about £600,000 out.

General Mulcahy

That is nothing.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister is nothing of the kind. In fact, as it turned out, they paid more than that.

Mr. Cosgrave

More than what?

Mr. Lemass

More than the £1,000,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All this is irrelevant.

Mr. Lemass

We have had Deputy Dillon talking about the inadvisability of giving the Minister for Industry and Commerce the powers set out in Section 7, because he is corrupt, because he is dishonest, because he will use these powers to fill the pockets of the political supporters of his Party, and he gave an example. We have these powers at present under the Control of Imports Act. No new power is given to the Minister by that section; he has these powers already in relation to sugar or any other commodity subject to a quota order. Deputy Dillon picked one example— oranges. We must not give the Minister these powers, he said, because of the way he used similar powers possessed by him in relation to oranges. He used these powers, he said, to require that oranges be imported by a particular route direct from Spain to the Saorstát for the benefit of the carrying Company, which had established a shipping service between Spain and the Saorstát; because that company had subscribed to Fianna Fáil funds, and because representatives of it had gone around speaking at week-end meetings on behalf of Fianna Fáil. That is the Limerick Steamship Company. If there are any of the Limerick Deputies in the House, they will realise the joke of that.

It is suggested here seriously by Deputy Dillon that I made that regulation for the benefit of the Limerick Steamship Company, because the Limerick Steamship Company had subscribed to the funds of the Fianna Fail Party, and because the directors of that company had spoken at meetings on behalf of Fianna Fáil candidates. That is the type of foundation there is for all the allegations we get from Deputy Dillon and his colleagues on the opposite benches. The power to regulate the importation of any commodity that is subject to a quota order through any particular port, or by a particular route, is designed to break down the system which operated here to the detriment of our people, by which goods imported from all countries in the world came to us through English middlemen. Spanish oranges came into this country before. They were imported into Great Britain and they paid a 10 per cent. duty to the British Government. They were auctioned on a British market and reexported to this country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is not a word about it in this Bill.

Mr. Lemass

No, but Deputy Dillon's contention was that I should not be given the powers set out in Section 7, because I had abused similar powers in relation to oranges. Deputy Dillon was allowed to make the argument, and I presume I am allowed to answer it. I say there was good reason to use these powers in that way in relation to oranges. By doing so we established direct connection with the producers; we established a new Irish shipping service; and we secured that the English middlemen and merchandising organisations would not be able to get a rake-off upon trade between Spain and Ireland. Is that contrary to the policy of the Party opposite? I must presume from Deputy Dillon's speech that it is a Party that stands for giving England a rake-off in everything.

We have had also the suggestion that this Bill is introduced for the purpose of increasing the revenue and securing that the actual tax upon imported sugar will be higher. Deputies opposite need not concern themselves about that. We are going to make all the sugar the Irish people want here in the country. This year there will be a deficiency—a deficiency due to various causes. Perhaps the sugar company were unduly cautious in allocating acreage last year, as they had not got precise knowledge of what the market was going to be, or the supply of beet. There was a slight reduction in the sugar content of the beet produced. Due, however, to these causes, and certain others, production this year will be some thousands of tons less than our requirements, and that quantity of sugar will have to be imported.

It is proposed to give the Sugar Company the right to import it on condition that they make no profit out of the importation of that sugar or its resale to Irish wholesale merchants. That is the condition on which they are to be given a licence—that they will make no profit. If there is any slight variation between the price at which sugar will come in and the price at which Irish sugar is sold, the benefit of the difference, whatever amount it may be, will accure to the Exchequer and to the benefit of the Irish people, not to the benefit of the small number of registered sugar importers.

Next year the importation of sugar will be negligible. There will always be a necessity to import small quantities of special classes of sugar used in particular manufacturing processes. We have at the present time the ridiculous position that, if we want to allow in for a manufacturer of condensed milk 300 tons of sugar over a certain period to produce a certain class of commodity in which he is interested, we have to make a quota order for a very much larger amount— a quota order so large that, when allocated between all the registered importers, the one importer in whom we are interested will get 300 tons, so that a quantity of sugar far in excess of requirements is imported. It is necessary to terminate that position, and this is the sensible way to do it—the way that certainly works to the benefit of the Irish people. The quantity that will have to be imported next year will be negligible. It will amount to a few hundred tons at the outside. There will be no undue accession of revenue to the Exchequer or of profit to the Sugar Company.

I seriously ask Deputies opposite to deal with measures that come before them on their merits. We have had no attempt made to deal with this Bill on its merits. It was used instead as an excuse for a series of wild general allegations about the operations of the Sugar Company and the effects of the sugar scheme upon agriculture and the wages of agricultural labourers. Deputies knew quite well that these matters had nothing to do with the Bill. Just because they had no concrete or positive statements to make on the Bill, but nevertheless felt that they had to make speeches, and they went into all these irrelevancies. Even in these irrelevancies they had the facts all wrong. We had the stupid statements made by Deputy Dillon and the equally stupid statements of Deputy Mulcahy—all based upon a misconception of the facts, as well as inability on their part to relate the facts to the measure before the House.

I hope that Deputy Cosgrave, now that he is re-elected Leader of the Party, will try to get some sense of responsibility into its members. They have been sent here as members of Parliament to do the work of governing the nation, and the only thing they can do as an Opposition is to contribute constructive suggestions on the various problems before the country and to give us the benefit of their constructive criticism upon measures introduced in this House. We have not had a constructive suggestion from them since they went into opposition. If they want to be taken seriously as a Party, or if Deputy Cosgrave wants to be taken seriously as Leader of the Party, they will have to change their tactics. Certainly a repetition of the exhibition we had to-day in the debate on this measure would be the best argument that could be advanced for Fascism in this or any other country.

General Mulcahy

I should like to ask the Minister when he will take an opportunity of telling us what the farmers will get out of this money and what the agricultural labourers and the workers in the factories will get. I should also like him to tell us whether the price to be paid to the farmers for beet this year is the same as was paid last year.

Mr. Lemass

These are matters which can be dealt with by parliamentary questions addressed to the appropriate Ministers. So far as I know, the farmers are working upon a three years' contract with the Sugar Company. So far as the argument that Deputy Mulcahy is trying to develop is concerned, he will appreciate that the whole of the sum which is paid by the sugar consumers for sugar, the whole of the sugar fund as he described it, stays in this country. The whole of it goes somewhere. It is not going into the Exchequer. The Exchequer is getting less from sugar than ever. It is not going to the Sugar Company, because if the company make profits these profits go to the Exchequer. It is going to Irish workers and farmers and no one else. It cannot possibly go anywhere else. Once Deputy Mulcahy has that fact right, he will appreciate the benefit of this scheme to the nation.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister, in the course of his lucid explanation in answer to the criticisms passed on the measure, stated that we were approaching the point where we would manufacture all the sugar required in this country. May I ask him in that connection, when exports are taking place from this country, what drawback will be allowed to manufacturers sending goods out of the country? Is it only the Excise duty?

Mr. Lemass

Manufacturers are put in the precise position as if they could buy duty-free imported sugar. The manufacturers exporting goods containing sugar get a drawback of the duty paid plus a compensation bounty provided for in the Finance Act.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is not the question I put. The Minister stated that we were approaching the point where we would manufacture all the sugar here. What I want to know is if, in connection with the exports, the drawback is going to include any sum over and above the cost of the import of the sugar into this country? In other words, the exporters are dealing with world prices. I want to know are they only to get the drawback, or will they get a sum equivalent to charging them in the manufacture of the goods only for the import price of the sugar?

Mr. Lemass

That is what I said. The manufacturers who export goods get the sugar which is in these goods at the world price. The Deputy's use of the word "drawback" is confusing. A drawback is a drawback of duty. They get a drawback of the full duty paid, plus a compensation bounty, which represents the difference between the cost of manufacturing here and the world price, which is provided for in the Finance Act, and for which provision is made in the book of Estimates.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 33.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corbett, Edmond.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corkerry, Daniel.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ryan, James.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Coburn, James.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Curran, Richard.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Rowlette, Robert James.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

Bill read a Second Time. Committee Stage fixed for Thursday, 12th March.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is it not rather soon to take the Committee Stage?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will understand it is desirable that this Bill should be law before the present quota period expires. The present quota period has only six weeks to run and, from every point of view, if this measure is going to operate at all, it is better that it should operate at the beginning of the period for extended imports rather than at any other time.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister should have introduced the Bill earlier. It is now urgent by reason of the Minister making more political speeches than doing his business.

Mr. Lemass

I make more relevant speeches at any time than Deputy Dillon, at any rate.

Mr. Cosgrave

I would back Deputy Dillon against the Minister at any time.