asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that farmers and grain growers are charged 7/- for sacks containing imported grain, when it is understood that such sacks are free of charge by exporters; that such a charge by the distributors here is a burden on the farmers; if he will have this matter investigated; and if he is further aware that seed merchants were, last season, charged 5/- and 7/6 each for sacks, which charges had to be met by the farmers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Charges for Sacks.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is now prepared to revoke the Emergency Powers Orders relating to sacks, in view of the improved supply position and of the hardship, inconvenience and expense which these Orders inflict on farmers and traders, particularly in regard to sacks used for artificial fertilisers.
I propose to take questions 10 and 11 together.
In accordance with Emergency Powers (Sacks) Order, 1941, all sacks, whether imported or home manufactured, are issued on a returnable basis and purchasers of goods packed in sacks are obliged to pay a deposit to ensure the return of the sacks within the period prescribed in the Order. The deposit on a grain sack is 7/6 and on all other sacks whose capacity is not less than 1 cwt. 5/-. The deposit is refunded on the return of the sack within the prescribed period and the issuer is responsible for the cost of returning the sack. No charge, accordingly, falls on farmers and traders who purchase grain, seed, and fertilisers in sacks unless they fail to return the sacks within the prescribed period.
As indicated by me in response to a question in Dáil Éireann on 29th October last the question of the continued operation of the Sacks Order has been under consideration in consultation with the interests concerned, who have been advised that the Order will be revoked if and when a satisfactory arrangement can be made between them to ensure that the revocation will not involve any increase in the price of flour.
Is the Minister aware that sacks were sent in here free by exporters across Channel during the last spring sowing season and that the importers here have charged farmers at the rate of 7/6 and 5/- per sack for sacks that came in free?
That is not correct. The sacks are issued on a returnable basis and the fee charged is refunded when the sacks are returned.
Is the Minister aware that, in practice, in a country house or farm a bag gets dirty and torn and, in that event, the vendor of the bag will not take it back or allow the money for it? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that all these bags that are returned constitute a very serious additional burden on the transport of the country—consigning parcels of bags to and fro and having them distributed at the North Wall and elsewhere and getting them back with fertilisers, etc.?
This Order was made because of the scarcity of sacks which was so acute as to threaten the distribution of supplies. The persons who got the goods in sacks were urged to preserve them from damage and were given a substantial financial inducement to do so.
What financial inducement?
The financial inducement of getting a refund if the sack was returned undamaged.
Do you call that an inducement?
Yes.
There was a heavy fine if they did not.
The Deputy can put it that way if he likes. The supply position has now improved and I am anxious to get rid of the Order without increasing the cost of goods sold in sacks. I put that problem to the people concerned and asked them to work out a solution.
Is the Minister prepared to fix a reasonable price for the bags? The point is that bags are being charged for at an excessive price to the farmer and, as Deputy Dillon pointed out and as the Minister knows, if bags get damaged the farmers are charged 5/- or 7/6. Would the Minister not fix a reasonable price for the bags, say, 1/6 or 2/-?
Flour is now sold on the basis of what the flour costs and if flour is to be sold on the basis that the bag costs something I want to make sure that that will be paid by someone other than the consumer of the flour.
Apart from flour sacks, is the Minister aware that, in the case of flax seed and other grains, the sacks are sent by the people across Channel free of charge; that the merchants here insist on the return of the sacks and as soon as the farmer brings them back to the shopkeeper the shopkeeper will offer them back at 5/- to the person to whom he is compelled to return them?
I do not understand what the point is.
The point is that, in the case of flax seed, for instance, these sacks are sent in by cross-Channel suppliers free of charge to the merchants and the merchants, instead of allowing the bags that they got free to remain with the flax growers, insist on their being returned and then they are sold to others at 5/-. Why should they not be left with the farmers?
Because the bags are required for other purposes.
The flax merchants are selling the empty bags.
To people who want empty bags for commercial purposes.
Why should not the farmer get them and sell them?
Is not the man who gets the seed more entitled to them than the merchant?
One of the main sources of the supply of sacks is the second-hand sack merchant who buys the sacks and reconditions them. One of the problems we want to solve is how these second-hand sack merchants can get these sacks by paying for them a price which is reasonable from their point of view and, at the same time, does not involve an increase in the price of the commodities originally sold in the sacks.
The point is that the sacks are coming in free and that the importers here are selling them to the second-hand sack merchants at a certain price and they are therefore making a profit.
The price at which flour and other commodities are sold in bags makes allowance for the fact that there is a resale value of the sack.
Will the Minister reduce the price of the seed by 5/-?
The resale value of the sack is taken into account.