asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the authority under which he collects from Comhlucht Siuicre Éireann, Teo., the difference between the economic price of sugar and the price charged to manufacturers and other citizens for jam-making, harvesting, etc.; and the date on which the authority of the Dáil was sought and given for this action.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sugar Prices.
A special price of 7½d. a lb. for sugar was first charged to manufacturers who use that commodity as a raw material as from the 1st June, 1947, and indefinite continuance of this arrangement was announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement in Dáil Éireann in May last. The special price was charged in the other cases mentioned by the Deputy during the summer and autumn of this year. The approval of Dáil Éireann for the arrangement was not sought specifically and it is not considered that it should have been so sought.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the total quantity of sugar purchased for jam making and harvesting operations and by jam manufacturers since the new Order was made; the total extra amount of money paid for such sugar, to whom it was paid, and by whom it was finally collected.
The Deputy's question is ambiguous. The Order under which a special price for sugar is charged to jam manufacturers was made in June, 1947. The Orders made this year in July and September covered the provision of sugar to private individuals for jam making and harvesting and did not apply to jam manufacturers. If the Deputy will indicate more precisely the information he wishes to obtain I will endeavour to give it to him.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the number of hundredweights of sugar sold: (i) for jam making to private applicants; (ii) for harvesting operations; (iii) to the condensed milk company; (iv) to caterers, hoteliers, etc.; what price was received in each case and who finally received the difference in price as between this sugar and subsidised sugar.
In the 1948 season 213,584 cwts. of sugar were sold for jam-making to private individuals and 4,374 cwts. were sold for harvesting operations. This sugar was invoiced by the company at 65/4 a cwt. and of this amount 12/10 a cwt. will be paid into the Exchequer as an Extra Receipt on the account of the Vote for Industry and Commerce.
I am unable to give the information sought by the Deputy in the case of catering establishments because no period has been specified in the question, and, even if the period had been indicated in the case of the condensed milk company, I would not have been prepared to give the information as it is not the practice to supply such details in respect of an individual concern.
Is the Minister aware that this seizure of the money by the Exchequer, without authority, has left the sugar company in the position this year that they cannot pay an increased price for beet?
Is the Minister aware that over 12 months ago the previous Government issued an instruction to the sugar company that any profit made on the manufacture of cane sugar could not be diverted towards increasing the price paid for sugar beet?
That is quite true, and what Deputy Corry has described as an illegal action was initiated—may I remind the Deputy of this—in 1947, and has nothing whatever to do with what the Deputy is now talking about, and the Deputy knows that.
The question to which I want an answer is if the Minister considers it just to deplete the exchequer of the sugar company in such a way as to prevent the farming community getting an increased price for their beet production this year?
The Deputy knows quite well that the action referred to in his question, together with my reply, has nothing whatever to do with the price of the beet crop.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I intend to raise this matter on the adjournment.
Would the Minister indicate what legislative authority there is for imposing this charge on the sugar?
The same legislative authority as the Deputy had in 1947.
Am I correct in assuming that there was a financial resolution passed in the Dáil in 1947?
No.
Look it up.
It is illegal.
It is not the only illegality passed on to us by the Deputy.