Vol. 84 No. 12
I move:—
That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of the Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1941.
It is necessary in the case of orders made under the Act that they should be confirmed by the Oireachtas within a certain specified period. The purpose of the order is to restrict the import of sugar and, where licences are issued, to confine the issue of these licences to the Sugar Company.
This order operates to place under the exclusive control of the Sugar Company the import and distribution of sugar. I want to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he thinks it reasonable, where a statutory company of this kind is given a monopoly, that it should so operate that monopoly as seriously to discriminate between distributors who convey the merchandise to the consumer. I have directed the attention of this House and the Minister on more than one occasion to an anomaly in this connection. The present system of distribution of sugar in this country is that the Sugar Company declare that a certain selected number of railway stations in Ireland shall be known as "carriage-paid" railway stations and, at these stations, a merchant can purchase sugar at carriage-paid rates and subject to discount dependent on the quantity of sugar he is prepared to accept in one delivery. Now, he may be in competition with another merchant situated 15 miles away from that railway station.
I assume that the Deputy is referring to imported sugar?
Yes.
Or to any sugar.
The Ceann Comhairle might object if I made my remarks extend to any sugar. In any case, whatever sugar I am referring to, I can make the case that I should be allowed to bring in this foreign sugar instead of sugar which the company are sending out on what I believe to be inequitable terms. A situation then arises in which two merchants in competition in a rural area find themselves in this position, that merchant No. 1 can get his sugar delivered carriage-paid at his railway station while merchant No. 2, who is living 15 miles nearer to the sugar factory on the railway-line, is obliged to see his sugar carried through his railway station on to the next station.
That matter might have been raised on the Vote for the Minister's Department.
I am raising it on this Sugar Order.
But this motion deals solely with the question whether or not the Dáil approves of the prohibition of the import of sugar.
It raises the question whether we want to give the Sugar Company a monopoly in the distribution of sugar, imported or home produced. If I can satisfy the House that the methods of distribution are unsatisfactory, the House will, presumably, refuse to pass this order and I can get my sugar through somebody who will treat me equitably. This is an order which gives the Sugar Company a monopoly of the distribution of all sugar in the country. As I have pointed out, merchant No. 1 can get his sugar carriage-paid. Merchant No. 2 sees his sugar carried through his station 15 miles further on to another station. Then merchant No. 2 has to pay carriage on that sugar back from the railway station to his own station and is embarrassed in his competition by the added costs that are piled on to his sugar simply because the Sugar Company says that the station of merchant No. 1 is a carriage-paid station whilst that of merchant No. 2 is not. I want to submit to the House that there are two equitable bases upon which merchandise can be distributed where there is a monopoly—either you can distribute it ex-factory and let everybody make his own arrangement to have it conveyed from the factory to his place of business——
This order does not give a monopoly of the whole sugar trade to the Beet Sugar Company.
There is only one authority licensed in this country to manufacture sugar from beet, and that authority is Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teoranta, but if at any time I fall out with Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teoranta, I can import sugar from Cuba or Hang Wang, and say to Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teoranta, "I will not deal with you; I am going to deal with Hang Wang." Now, this order comes along and says: "You cannot deal with Hang Wang if you do not get a licence from the Minister for Industry and Commerce." In introducing this order the Minister for Industry and Commerce says in effect: "I wish to inform the House that it is not proposed to give a licence to anyone to deal with Hang Wang except, Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teoranta." On that statement, and on the contents of this order, I am saying: Is it fair to give this exclusive licence to Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teoranta, if that company is not treating the citizens of this country fairly? I want the Minister to get up and say: "I think it is not proper to give this exclusive licence to Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teoranta, if it is not treating the citizens of this State rightly, and I, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, will see, before I give the company this exclusive licence, that it will treat the people rightly."
Now, I am trying to tell the Miniister and the House what treating the people rightly would be, and when I have done that I want to sit down. I am putting it to the Minister and to the House that there are two equitable ways of distributing merchandise where a monopoly is doing the distribution. One is to sell it to the community ex-factory. Let every man make his own arrangements to get the merchandise from the factory to his place of business in the most economical way that he can. The other way is to say that, in view of the fact that the factories were distributed in certain centres owing to social considerations being given effect to as opposed to strictly economical considerations, sugar will be delivered, carriage paid, to any railway station or goods depot in Eire recognised by the Government. Now either system would be reasonably equitable, but I suggest that the halfway house which gives half the community the right to get sugar delivered to its door carriage paid and denies that right to the other half, is not equitable and should not be allowed to continue. I am, therefore, suggesting to the Minister that a condition precedent to his granting to Comhlucht Siuicre Eireann, Teoranta, a licence under this order shall be that he shall say to them: "In future every goods depôt on the Great Southern Railways system must be a carriage-paid station for the delivery of sugar. Whether a man buys six tons, 50 tons or 1,000 tons, he will be permitted to take delivery of that at any recognised goods depôt on the existing railway system of the country." I can see no argument against that. I would be grateful if the Minister, before granting this exclusive licence to the sugar company, would request it to do what I have suggested. I do not think it is an unreasonable request to make.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the position in which Deputy Dillon finds himself. My personal view is that it is a hardship if some traders should not be able to buy sugar upon the same terms as their competitors, no matter where their business places may be situate, but unfortunately, I am not in the position, in connection with this order, to influence the sugar company in that direction. The order is not made for the benefit of the sugar company but for the benefit of the community. The sugar company is not permitted to make any profit on imported sugar. The whole Act was drawn up as a means for controlling the import of sugar, and of making it possible to secure sugar for our people upon the best and most favourable terms possible. Apart altogether from that, since October of last year there have been no imports of sugar. This order is merely made in order to keep the matter alive pending the adjustment of accounts between the sugar company, on the one hand, and the Exchequer on the other, which must eventually take place.
I should also like to emphasise that I have no functions in relation to the sugar company and no control over it. It was established under an Act of the Oireachtas. The Minister for Industry and Commerce does not hold any shares in it so that, beyond making representations to the sugar company in relation to this matter, as I have done, I have no sort of sanction which I can bring to bear in order to secure what the Deputy has requested.
Has not the Minister as much control over the Sugar Company as he has over the Electricity Supply Board?
No more than I have over the Electricity Supply Board, and I have no control over the Electricity Supply Board.
Nevertheless, the Minister has been able to make the Electricity Supply Board do work which they did not want to do.
There is no foundation for that statement.
May I suggest to the Minister that there was an element of social amelioration in the location of these sugar factories? That, I suggest, is a ground on which application should be made for equal treatment for all. Because of that fact there ought to be equity as between everyone. Individual citizens should not be prejudiced as a result of the social considerations that were allowed to operate when the sugar factories were being built.
Is it not a fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has power to remove the directors of the sugar company?
The Deputy is quite wrong. He ought to read the Act.
