asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state separately for each of the sugar factories in respect of the years 1936, 1937 and 1938 (a) the quantity of sugar produced; (b) the average price per cwt. (before adding excise duty) realised for sugar sold; (c) the quantity of sugar pulp and molasses produced; (d) the net price realised for sugar pulp and molasses sold, or in the alternative, the estimated value per cwt. of the pulp and molasses produced, and the date on which the production campaign opened and closed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Production and Price of Sugar.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state separately for each of the sugar factories in respect of the years 1936/37, 1937/38 and 1938/39 (a) the total area under sugar beet; (b) the average yield per acre and the total quantity of beet delivered to the factory; (c) the average sugar content of beet delivered; (d) the average price per ton of beet and the total sum (exclusive of transport charges) paid to the producers for beet delivered; (e) the cost of delivery of beet; (f) the average number of persons employed during the manufacturing campaign, average weekly rate of wages, and the total sum paid in wages to such persons.
I propose to answer Nos. 4 and 5 together. The information sought by the Deputy is of a private commercial nature pertaining to the internal conduct of the business of Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teo., and I am satisfied that it is not in the public interest that it should be disclosed. Moreover, its disclosure in the absence of detailed and protracted explanation might lead to misinterpretation of the information accorded and to the deduction of inaccurate conclusions, as well as tending to uninformed comparisons of efficiency as between factories, which would be unfair to the company and its staffs. Furthermore, the disclosure of such information might be utilised to the detriment of the company's relations with bodies and persons with whom it has commercial contact. The company has complied with its statutory obligations under Section 15 of the Sugar Manufactures Act, 1933.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, how does the Minister contend that the information sought by the Deputy is of a private commercial nature or that Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teoranta, is a private company inasmuch as it depends for its existence on its licence from the Government to charge what it likes for its sugar?
Perhaps the Deputy will wait until he reads the reply I made to the question.
The Minister said that he could give no such information as that asked for and that it was not in the public interest that this information should be disclosed. Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teoranta, is in no sense an independent company.
I move that the question be now put.
The Deputy is not entitled to reply to the Minister's statement. He may ask only a supplementary question.
I ask him this supplementary question: How can he allege in this House that there is any analogy between Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann and an ordinary joint stock company whose affairs are, for the purpose of our proceedings, regarded as confidential, inasmuch as this company is a company depending for its existence on a licence from this Oireachtas?
The Deputy may not make a speech in the guise of a supplementary question.
Will the Minister say if, as in the case of flour and bacon, the public are being stuck in the price they have to pay for sugar by reason of the fact that the price charged by the sugar company for sugar is based upon the least efficient of the units producing sugar in the country?
That is a separate question.
The Deputy is completely misinformed.
The same as he was about bacon, I suppose?
Exactly.