asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state in reference to imports of Jaffa oranges (1) whether a monopoly was given to any individual; (2) if so, if this monopoly was given to a firm of fruit importers; (3) whether the decision, since altered, not to fix a wholesale price for Jaffa oranges was taken in the light of this monopoly arrangement; and (4) if so, to whom was this monopoly given.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Imports of Jaffa Oranges.
There are no restrictions on the importation of oranges into this country. At the present time, however, shipping and currency facilities are granted only to firms which imported oranges direct from the country of origin before the emergency.
In the case of Jaffa oranges, it is understood that exporters in Palestine are not prepared to deal with more than one firm in this country. I have, however, no definite information on this point. Only one firm approached my Department for shipping facilities in respect of Jaffa oranges. Equal facilities would, however, be granted to any other firm, qualified to receive facilities, and in a position to arrange supplies.
As regards part (3) of the question, the Deputy should understand that importers ordinarily dispose of a substantial proportion of the oranges imported by them to wholesalers, and the recent Order fixing maximum wholesale prices relates to the prices charged by these wholesalers to retailers. The prices charged by importers to wholesalers are arranged with my Department.
Is it not the Minister's duty, generally, to supervise the conditions under which articles of food are brought into this country? Has he received any representations to the effect that Jewish interests, which largely control the export trade of Jaffa oranges from Jerusalem and Jaffa, approached an individual and gave him a monopoly of Jaffa orange deliveries, that that individual farmed out that monopoly to an established firm of fruit importers and that it is under that arrangement Jaffa oranges are coming into the country at present? Are those facts correct?
So far as I know, those facts are entirely wrong.
Will the Minister inquire into the circumstances?
I know all the circumstances.
If the Minister knows all the circumstances, will he answer that question—whether a monopoly was given to an individual; if so, whether this monopoly was farmed out to a firm of fruit importers and, if so, to whom the monopoly was given? If the Minister knows all the circumstances, why will he not tell us of them?
No monopoly was given to any individual.
Is it not true that one individual is responsible for all the imports of Jaffa oranges here? Is it open to any Irish firm except the firm at present in receipt of supplies to get supplies from the Jaffa Orange-growers Association?
The Deputy must not ask me to deal with a question relating to a country outside my jurisdiction. So far as our regulations are concerned, anybody engaged in the business and otherwise qualified can get equal facilities for the import of Jaffa or any other kind of oranges.
If the Minister discovers that, in an area outside the jurisdiction of this country, trading arrangements are being made whereunder citizens of this country are being exploited, will he prohibit negotiations with that conspiracy or insist on that foreign firm sending their merchandise to this country on terms which will preclude the possibility of monopolistic exploitation of consumers here? Surely, the Minister does not shirk that responsibility?
So far from there being any suggestion as to the exploitation of consumers, I think that the arrangements made for the importation of Jaffa oranges were advantageous to this country.
Does the Minister consider that a monopoly to one individual is a desirable or proper arrangement?
It is by no means an unusual practice in business for exporters of a commodity to send supplies only to a particular firm. That applies in the case of a large number of commodities. As regards my function, so long as there is a position of scarcity, my function is to see that no such position is exploited to the detriment of our consumers.
The Minister thinks that this monopolistic arrangement is best.
So far as I am concerned, there is no monopolistic position.
So far as the oranges are concerned there is, and it is the oranges we are eating, not the Minister.
The Deputy is completely misinformed.
I am not misinformed.