asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state (1) the circumstances which led to the decision to increase the price of unrationed sugar by 1d. per lb. from 3rd October, 1950; (2) the circumstances which led to the decision to reduce the price by ½d. per lb. from 1st November; (3) the current prices quoted for imported sugar for immediate delivery on 1st October, 1949, 1st May, 1950, and 1st October, 1950; (4) the current prices quoted for imported sugar for 1951 delivery; (5) the arrangements made with wholesale sugar merchants holding sugar stocks or with commitments to their customers when each change in price was effected; (6) whether there was any prior consultation with wholesale sugar merchants; (7) the profit which the Irish Sugar Company made on the sale of unrationed sugar during its latest completed accounting year, and (8) the profit anticipated from such sales in the present accounting year.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Price of Sugar.
The reply is as follows:—
(1) The increase of 1d. per lb in the price of unrationed sugar was authorised as from the 3rd October, 1950, because of an advance in the world price of sugar.
(2) The price of unrationed sugar was reduced by ½d. per lb. as from the 1st November, 1950, as a result of a more favourable trend in the world prices of sugar.
(3) The current prices quoted for imported sugar for immediate delivery on the dates in question were as follows:—
1/10/1949:— Cuban raw sugar 4.25 cents. per lb. f.a.s. Cuba.
1/5/1950:— Cuban raw sugar 4.40 cents. per lb. f.a.s. Cuba.
1/10/1950:— Cuban raw sugar 5.95 cents. per lb. f.a.s. Cuba.
(4) The current prices quoted on 4th November,. 1950, for imported sugar for 1951 delivery are as follows:—
For January, 1951, delivery:—
Cuban raw sugar 5.46 cents. per lb. f.a.s. Cuba.
For March/September, 1951, delivery:—
Cuban raw sugar 4.73 cents. per lb. f.a.s. Cuba.
(5) and (6). It was not considered necessary to make any arrangement with wholesale sugar merchants regarding stocks or commitments or to consult these merchants prior to the price changes. In this connection, I might say that it is my view that wholesale merchants generally have not been placed at any disadvantage taking both price changes into account.
(7) and (8). The Irish Sugar Company is a commercial concern and in the case of such a concern it is not the practice to disclose particulars of the kind for which the Deputy asks in these parts of his question.
With regard to the last part of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, surely it is reasonable to ask, where a company such as this is permitted to charge a price for sugar far in excess of the economic price, in order to subsidise the price of other sugar sold by it and to relieve the Exchequer, that we should know how much money it is making out of this uneconomic price or how much it is expected it will make over a future period when the Government instructs it to increase that price?
Of course, when the accounts of this company are published, the information the Deputy asks for will be available, but it has not been the practice in the past to disclose information of this nature regarding an individual commercial concern.
But this is not an individual commercial concern. This is a Government concern, controlled by the Government, selling sugar at an uneconomic price because the Government ordered it to do so. Is not it reasonable for the Dáil to expect to be supplied with information as to the financial results of that policy imposed on that concern by the Government?
I do not know whether it is reasonable to expect a semi-State concern like the sugar company to publish details in advance of their normal accounts.
Is it not a fact that, as a result of the instructions given it by the Government to sell sugar at an uneconomic price, this company made a profit from such sales of £1,000,000 last year? Is it anticipated that the increased price now sanctioned by the Minister will further increase that profit in this year?
No; it will be substantially lower.
If the Parliamentary Secretary knows that, why cannot he give us the figure to support his view?
Variations in the price of sugar will affect that.
May I ask one further supplementary question? I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that there was no consultation with wholesale sugar merchants. Surely it is unfair to traders in that position, carrying stocks and selling sugar in advance of deliveries to their customers, to be presented with serious fluctuations of price, such as occurred during the past month, without having any opportunity of consultation with the Department of Industry and Commerce for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the Department the loss and inconvenience which these changes may occasion. Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree now to consult with wholesale sugar merchants as to the effect which these changes had upon their business?
I appreciate the points which the Deputy puts, but it is difficult enough to regulate the price of sugar in a changing market without having to consult at every variation in price a whole body of persons, wholesalers and others. These factors are taken into account, but, in view of the very rapid changes, the most equitable way to do it is to make the Order as quickly as opportunity offers.
On the first occasion these wholesale merchants were presented with an uncovenanted profit of ld. per lb. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary should be concerned to ensure that the profit did not accrue for the benefit of the individuals and to see that by adjustment of price by the sugar company or by adjustment of the sale price of sugar the uncovenanted profit would be recovered? When the Parliamentary Secretary reduced the price there was an uncovenanted loss imposed on these merchants. As a result of the two changes the position of the merchants may not have been affected, but I suggest it is desirable that when changes are in contemplation some action should be taken, on the one hand, to prevent an undue profit, or, on the other hand, an undue loss being imposed on the public.
I do not accept the suggestion that there was an undue profit. I did not change my mind. The price had to be revised. The price dropped and when it dropped it was revised. In these circumstances, there was a sudden fluctuation in a comparatively short space of time. I suggest the action taken was the most satisfactory action that could be taken in the circumstances.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that the price will not change again for some weeks?
I cannot forecast the future any more than the Deputy.