Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Aug 1936

Vol. 63 No. 19

Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1936.

Acting-Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Derrig)

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1936, made on the 24th day of April, 1936, by the Executive Council under the Sugar (Control of Imports) Act, 1936 (No. 16 of 1936).

Under the Sugar (Control of Imports) Act, 1936, a Prohibition Order was made on the 24th April last. That Order prohibited the importation of sugar into Saorstát Eireann during the period beginning on the 1st May, 1936, and ending on the 30th April, 1937. Under Section 37 of the Act it is provided that every Prohibition Order made shall cease to have effect at the expiration of six months from the date of its making unless the Order is approved by resolution of Dáil Eireann. I propose the resolution accordingly. The matter was very fully discussed on the occasion of the passage of the Sugar (Control of Imports) Act into law, and as the Prohibition Order was merely an operating portion of the legislation, I do not think it is necessary to go into the matter at this stage.

Mr. Curran

I want to know what was the amount of sugar imported by licence and also the price at which it was imported.

Mr. Derrig

I cannot tell the Deputy the price at which it was imported. The amount of sugar imported under licence was 12,387 tons.

Mr. Curran

And the price?

Mr. Derrig

I have not got the price. I shall let the Deputy have the information.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Minister not aware that the ruling price of sugar in Liverpool for some time has been about £18 per ton? I am not quite sure, but I think that price includes some small revenue duty. Assuming that the price of £18 per ton contains no revenue duty but is the price which an importer would pay for that sugar, can the Minister tell us what customs duty was paid on that sugar, if any, when imported into Saorstát Eireann?

Mr. Derrig

I do not know that either. I know that the imported sugar, plus the customs duty, is, of course, cheaper than the Saorstát manufactured sugar, plus the excise duty. But the lower price of the imported sugar would, according to the information at my disposal, if it were passed on to the consumers, be less than ¼d. per lb. I regret that I have not the figures of the actual customs duty by me.

Mr. Dillon

¼d. per lb. would be 2/8 per cwt.

Mr. Derrig

It is less than a farthing.

Mr. Dillon

Well, if we put it at 2/6 per cwt. that would be £2 10s. per ton, and if 12,387 tons of sugar were imported it would suggest that somebody has got approximately £37,000 from the consumers of sugar in this country in extra profits on imported sugar. These figures are all new to me, and I am only revising them as I stand on my feet which is not an easy thing to do. I note that the Minister for Finance shakes his head, and, therefore, we want to be sure of our figures. The Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce says that 12,387 tons of foreign sugar were imported under licence. It is admitted that the price of that sugar, plus the customs duty, will be something less than ¼d. per lb. cheaper than the price of Irish sugar, and ¼d. per lb. would be about 2/8 per cwt.

Mr. E. Rice

2/4 per cwt.

Mr. Dillon

I am grateful to the Deputy for his correction. He has had the advantage of three minutes' silence to make the calculation while I was trying to do so on my feet. Let us take it that the difference in price is about 2/- per cwt. That gives somebody a profit of £2 a ton on the sugar that was imported, or, approximately, £24,700. Somebody has had that much profit on these imports of sugar, and what we want to know is, what has been done with it? Where has that money gone? I remember this question arising when the Act, under which the Order to import was made, was being discussed in the House. I remember that we asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce then what it was proposed to do, in the event of a large profit being made by the importing authority on the sugar that came in. To the best of my recollection, the Minister's reply was that the sum of money involved would be so trivial as to make it quite unnecessary to have any legislative provision made about it. Well, I do not think that £24,700 is a trivial sum, particularly when it is being levied on sugar, and I think the Acting Minister ought to be able to tell us what has become of that money. He ought to be able to tell us who has got it. Somebody surely has got this rake off, and the Acting Minister ought to be able to tell us how it is being disposed of.

Mr. Derrig

The Deputy, I think, is inclined to make a case on the statement I made, that the reduced price of the imported sugar, plus the customs duty, would not enable the lower price of the imported sugar to be conveniently passed on to consumers as, in general, the difference was less than ¼d. per lb. The position is as was explained fully by the Minister for Industry and Commerce when the Act was under discussion in the House some months ago: that it has been found necessary that Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo., should be made responsible for the importation of sugar. The reason for that is that it has been found difficult to regulate prices otherwise. The total consumption of sugar would be about 120,000 tons per annum, and 12,000 tons was the amount imported last year. Since it is not the policy of Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo., to make a profit on any sugar which they may import, I assume that there is no foundation for the Deputy's suggestion that a large sum of money, such as the £24,000 which he has mentioned, has gone, presumably, into the coffers of Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo. It is their policy to have a uniform price for sugar, and any advantage that may accrue by way of a cheaper price in the case of imported sugar will, I am sure, be reflected by an adjustment in the general price level of sugar to consumers in Saorstát Eireann.

Mr. Dillon

I made no suggestion at all as to where this money has gone. I do not know where it is going. All I said was that, from what the Minister told us, there appeared to be a sum of £24,700 unaccounted for, and I wanted to know what had become of it. I did not know whether Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo, was getting it, or who was getting it. But, surely, when the Minister knows that that sum is there he ought to ask somebody to account for it. If it is not the policy of Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo., to make this profit, then surely this money ought to be passed on to the consumers of sugar in this country, and if that cannot be done it would be better, I think, in the coffers of the Exchequer than in the coffers of a company which is already enjoying a very valuable monopoly. I do not think it is reasonable for a Minister to come to the House and say that he is issuing licences to a monopolist, the net cash value of which is £24,700, and that he does not know what they do with that money. Will the Minister entertain an application from me and grant me a licence on which I can cash-in to the tune of £24,700 at the expense of sugar consumers of this country, because if any individual can go to the Government and get a blank cheque from it for £24,700 on request, then the Government will be a little bit more popular than it at present appears to be. Surely, we are entitled to ask the Minister what has become of this £24,700.

Mr. Derrig

The intention, as I have said, is that in general an equal price level should be maintained, but if it is the position that in actual fact the reduction in price occasioned by the cheaper price of the imported sugar cannot be passed on to consumers, then it will go into the Exchequer in the form of licence fees.

Mr. Dillon

Now we are finding it out.

Mr. Derrig

There is a small fee at the rate of 1d. per cwt. charged for each licence issued. In actual fact, the position is that I am not in a position to state at what price the sugar was purchased. The Sugar Company are keeping a separate account of their transactions in imported sugar, and it is only when the account is submitted that we shall be in a position to state how exactly these transactions stand, and what has been the result.

Mr. Dillon

Having taken 2/4 off sugar with a great flourish of trumpets on the 1st August, the Minister is now quietly putting it back again through a licence fee under the Sugar Act of 1936, so that on this 12,000 tons of sugar that have come in, the 2/4 that the Minister for Finance has boasted about having taken off sugar is to be put back again and no one is to be made any the wiser. Surely, there are good grounds for inquiry here. Could not the Minister have got up and told us that at the start?

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy were able to make a schoolboy calculation he would see that his statement was unfounded.

Mr. Dillon

I am trying to draw information out of three Ministers, each one of whom is like an oyster with indigestion, clasping the pearl to its bosom. Can I persuade any of these Ministers to open and disgorge the pearl of knowledge that he has got? There is a sum of £24,000 involved. What the Minister for Industry and Commerce said was this: "All I know is that the imported sugar is something less than ¼d. a lb. cheaper than Irish sugar." As Deputy Rice kindly calculated for us, 2/4 represents ¼d. a lb. on a cwt. of sugar. Let us take it that it is 2/- a cwt. cheaper. That 2/- a cwt. amounts to £2 a ton, and £2 a ton on 12,387 tons comes to approximately £24,700. I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce what has become of that money, and he threw his hands in the air and said, "I do not know." Now, after consultation, he tells us that what is going to be done with the money is that Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo., will keep a separate account, and, when the import period is over, they will inform the Minister what profit they made on these imports of sugar, and the Minister will then fix a licence fee at such a figure as will transfer the entire amount of the profit into the Exchequer.

The Minister has declared that on the 1st August he took 2/4 a cwt. off sugar, but it now emerges that, after having taken off 2/4 under the Finance Act, he is going to put on 2/1 under the Sugar (Regulation of Imports) Act, 1936. Surely that is cheap chicanery. Why not be quite honest and tell the people you are going to go on taxing sugar in so far as you can knock a tax out of it? That is the truth, and instead of trying to play ducks and drakes with figures, why not speak the truth? If the Minister will tell the people the truth and trust them, he will probably find the criticisms of his actions will not be as stringent as they are at present. There are occasions on which the Minister for Finance is tempted to go beyond the bounds of discretion in telling the people the truth. Then he is locked up for a while. He is let out again when he cools off, and when he comes out he speaks more modestly and circumspectly. These recommendations to circumspection have, perhaps, carried him too far. Let me assure him that he is quite free to become indiscreet in Dáil Eireann. He will always have somebody beside him to cover up his tracks.

Mr. MacEntee

Are we now discussing sugar or the sweet subject of the Minister for Finance?

Mr. Dillon

I am endeavouring to explain to the Minister that when, for instance, he is speaking in County Galway he might be a little more discreet.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be well if the Deputy confined to Galway his replies to speeches made in that county.

Mr. Dillon

I am merely suggesting to the Minister that he should not carry into this House his manners and customs while in Galway.

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to know what relation all this has to the subject on the Order Paper?

Mr. Dillon

I am anxious that the Minister should confine himself to his Dáil form.

An Ceann Comhairle

And the Chair would like the Deputy to confine himself to the matter under discussion.

Mr. Dillon

It would be well if the Minister would speak openly, blandly, frankly and fully on this matter. If he puts his foot into it, the Minister for Agriculture will take it out if it is his left foot, and the Minister for Education will take it out if it is his right foot.

Mr. Derrig

There is no intention on the part of Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo., to make profits on the imported sugar. The Deputy has sought to give the impression to the House that there is profiteering or some other procedure going on which would enable the State, for example, to secure certain moneys from the consumer. If this sugar were imported in the ordinary way by private importers they would make a profit, and the Deputy would not find it necessary to raise the question here. They would get the usual profit at the expense of the consumer, and we would hear nothing about it. But because it has been found necessary in connection with the administration of the sugar business here that all sugar must be imported through Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo., then the Deputy, of course, has a great point, although he has been specifically informed that there is no intention that the company should make profits on such importation.

Mr. Dillon

But the Exchequer will.

Mr. Derrig

The only reason that procedure has been adopted is that there will be a uniform price. If it were possible to transfer to the consumer the reduction in the price of imported as compared with home-produced sugar, it would have been done. It has not been possible, because it is certainly less than ¼d. per pound. Until such time as we find out what the position is by examining the account—pending such examination and pending the receipt of the account, a fee of 1d. per cwt., which is a provisional fee, has been imposed and that goes into the Exchequer. Therefore, so far as there are any profits at present which cannot be passed on to the consumer by reason of the fact that the percentage of 1d. is too small, the Deputy would be justified in saying that such profits will go into the Exchequer. But we are not in a position to discuss the question, and to know exactly what amounts are involved, until we have the account of the Sugar Company which will show us what the actual purchase price of sugar is. Then the question of the fee and the relations of the Exchequer to these transactions can be discussed, having regard to the information available.

Mr. Curran

I think I was responsible for this debate. I wanted to find out some facts and figures in connection with the matter. The Minister for Education insinuated that if private individuals were importing the sugar we would not hear anything about it. That is unworthy of the Minister, particularly in view of the statements made from this side of the House. I have asked, and Deputy Dillon has repeatedly asked, what has become of the £24,000. Where has it gone to, or where it is likely to go? It took a lot of argument from this side to induce the Minister to make any statement. We have a perfect right to get all the information possible, in view of the attitude adopted by the Government in connection with the sugar business. I understood from the Minister that it would not be worth while to pass it on to the consumer. We have merely asked the simple question, where is the sum of £24,000 gone to—there is that amount involved.

Mr. MacEntee

There is not.

Mr. Derrig

There is no sum of £24,000 involved.

Mr. Dillon

Have you now discovered how much is involved?

Mr. Derrig

I told the Deputy we have not got the information and we will not get it until we have the account from the Sugar Company. The Deputy can go and advertise that £24,000 in Wexford if he wishes; he can write it up on every stone wall in the county.

Mr. Curran

Leave Wexford and Galway out of it. I did not butt into this debate for the purpose of bringing them in; you brought them in. There is a sum of money involved and we want to know where it is going. I understood the Government were going to issue licences at the rate of 1d. a pound. I am not satisfied with the explanation advanced from the Government Benches in connection with this business that we are now discussing. We have asked only simple questions and have not got any answer to them.

Mr. Derrig

I have answered the two questions the Deputy asked.

Mr. Curran

We asked where was the money going to.

Mr. Derrig

The Deputy did not ask that question.

Mr. Dillon

I take it, Sir, that we correctly interpret the Minister's statement——

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy desire to ask a question? He has already spoken.

Mr. Dillon

Several times.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not in Committee.

Mr. Dillon

Are we not? The Chair will agree——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may ask a question.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister said that a provisional licence fee of 1d. per cwt. was being fixed. Are we correct in assuming that it is the Minister's intention to adjust the fee when he gets the account from the Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo, to such a figure as will absorb all the profits that have been made on those imports for the benefit of the Exchequer?

Mr. Derrig

That is the intention.

Mr. Belton

I understood from the Minister that the price of the imported sugar plus the customs duty would be less than that of the home-produced sugar plus the excise duty?

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Mr. Belton

And the sum in question is an undefined one; let us call it £X. Obviously, when the Sugar Company is given a monopoly of the importation, they will have that sum of £X clear profit. It may amount to £2 a ton; it may be slightly more or it may be slightly less.

The Minister's explanation of the reason why it could not be handed on to the consumer is that it is smaller than any coin which is circulated here. I presume that is the explanation?

Mr. Derrig

It is less than ¼d. per lb.

Mr. Belton

I think there are other difficulties in the way too. There are the difficulties of working into trade. You could not wait until the last grain of home produced sugar was used up to spread out the imported sugar on the market at a reduced figure. You must have a uniform price all the year round. I think the Minister got a bit mixed. First he explained that the profit arising to the Sugar Company from the importation of that 12,000 tons or thereabouts would be reflected in the general sugar price for the whole year, and that perhaps that bit of profit would be eaten up by selling the home produced sugar at something less than it would be possible to sell it at if there were no profit made on the imported sugar. That was his first line of argument. He did not seem to be quite sure of that. Then he took up the provisional licence figure of 1d. per cwt. I should think that a better way would be to have a bulk figure, which should be easily ascertainable independent of the Sugar Company by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce working together. The Ministry of Industry and Commerce would give the permits for importation. I am not versed in those permits, but I presume they would show the amount imported, the price paid, and the wholesale price it was worth here. That would show the exact profit. The difference between the price of 12,000 tons of sugar so imported, after paying the customs duties, and the price of 12,000 tons of home produced sugar plus the excise duties, would show the total profit of £X. If that is the position, I consider that the Ministry of Finance would be entitled to that £X in a lump sum, and you will not get it any other way.

Question put and agreed to.