Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1951

Vol. 128 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Imports of Superphosphate.

Yesterday, and for some time past, I have sought to elicit from a multitude of Ministers—all of whom contradict one another—what had become of the 48,000 tons of superphosphate that were held at the disposal of the Minister for Agriculture when I left office on the 14th June this year. We have travelled through a whole gamut of answers without getting any satisfactory explanation. We had the Minister for Industry and Commerce who said there never had been any "super," that I had never provided any "super," and that it was all a figment of my imagination. Then Deputy Smith, the Minister for Local Government, took a whirl at it and he had the assistance of the dignified figure of Deputy Corry.

Then the acting-Minister for Agriculture downfaced Deputy Corry and told the Minister for Health to shut up. I took an hour off from my parliamentary duties yesterday to see Burgess Meredith in a gangster film. I noticed with great interest that one of the elements of horror introduced into that drama was the continuous employment by the gangsters of a kind of double talk that left every honest man wondering did they mean "yes" or did they mean "no". Every time an unfortunate victim questioned them to that end, they hit him in the left eye, and when he asked why, they replied: "Why what?" This treatment of their victim continued for some time until the wretched citizen was expected ultimately to collapse and to say "yes" to anything addressed to him when the conversation had quite got beyond him.

Now I put it to the House, having heard all the answers I got in the course of the last week or fortnight from the Tánaiste, from the Minister for Agriculture and the various Deputies who function for him: was not the impression created in the mind of every Deputy in this House that there never were 48,000 tons of "super" available? Even Deputy Hickey rose, like the honest man he is, in the midst of the tumult to make the modest request that the House and the people should be told the truth about this matter. He asked: "Who is telling the truth here?" I do not blame him. It would have been an act of faith on the part of Deputy Hickey to have accepted my asseveration against the confused tumult on the Front Bench opposite, but it would have flattered me if Deputy Hickey had made that act of faith and not paid me the doubtful compliment of testing the weight of my words against the tumult of that collection there. Now I do not want to follow all their confused asseverations in regard to this matter. I shall content myself by referring the House to Volume 127, No. 9, of the Official Report, column 1595:—

"Mr. Lemass: May I again advise the Deputy to advise the farmers to buy up these fertilisers, because the price is not going to get less? These fertilisers come from a part of the world where there is likely to be trouble.

Mr. Dillon: What about the 48,000 tons of fertilisers I left to the Minister for Agriculture?

Mr. Lemass: First of all, there were no 48,000 tons. When I inquired about that I was told that you were talking nonsense.

Mr. Dillon: I left 48,000 tons.

Mr. Lemass: You did not.

Mr. Dillon: I would have made £250,000 if I kept it in my pocket. I left it in the hands of the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Lemass: He could not find it.

Mr. Dillon: It is not the first time he could not find something until I showed him how."

Now, here is the patina of verisimilitude spread over that cross-talk from the Minister for Industry and Commerce:

"Mr. Lemass: When I asked the officials from the Department of Agriculture about that they said they did not know what you were talking about."

I am bound to go on record as saying that I do not believe any official of the Department said any such thing.

"They said they did not know what you were talking about."

I am prepared to say A Chinn Chomhairle, that I do not believe any official of the Department of Agriculture said any such thing, but let the Tánaiste and I at least agree on this point. Let that be the last reference between us to the Department's officials. His quarrel is with me and mine is with him. We accept responsibility personally for anything done by the officers of any Department. Most of what we achieve is their work and we take credit for that, so let us take any blame that is coming in this matter. The Tánaiste's shoulders are broad enough to bear it without assistance from them. The report goes on:

"Mr. Dillon: Tell him to try again.

Mr. Browne: I think I am entitled to ask the Minister this question: If there are 48,000 tons along with the 100,000 tons that were imported last year for stock——

Mr. Lemass: There are not.

Mr. Dillon: There are.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan: The Beet Growers' Association have it.

Mr. Lemass: When I asked them about it they said they had not got it.

Mr. Dillon: Go and snoop around.

Mr. Browne: The point I want to raise on this question is that if there are 48,000 tons in stock and if there is an increase per ton £35s. this year as compared with last year, then there is £156,000 due to the farmers and, therefore, manure at a lower price should be made available to them.

Mr. Lemass: The two prices will be related one to the other.

Mr. Dillon: The two prices of what?

Mr. Lemass: The compound fertilisers.

Mr. Dillon: He has let the cat out of the bag. He is going to marry the price of the 48,000 tons to the price——

Mr. Lemass: There are not 48,000 tons.

Mr. Dillon: What prices are you going to marry? You have got to have two to have a wedding.

Mr. Browne: No matter what will transpire, the farmers will have to pay through the nose for it. They are not going to get the benefits of the £156,000 that should be there to their credit. He brought in 100,000 tons and we are given to understand that there are 48,000 tons available to the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Lemass: There are not.

Mr. Dillon: He must have hidden them."

I think on that extract I am entitled to assume that the Minister for Industry and Commerce shrewdly suspected that there were 48,000 tons of superphosphate available to the Minister for Agriculture on the 14th June. Now I must trouble the House to turn to columns 1573 and 1574 of the Official Report of Thursday, 12th July, 1951— Volume 126, No. 10:—

"Mr. Dillon: Is the Minister making arrangements to import superphosphates himself? The Minister will recollect that we imported 89,000 tons super last year, of which 48,000 tons are in his possession at the present time. Does he intend to bring in further supplies this year so as to ensure that the domestic ring will not exploit the consumer?

Mr. T. Walsh: The Minister is aware that the Deputy made no provision whatsoever to have manures in this country in the autumn and winter and in the spring of next year, but I am taking the precaution now of having fertilisers here for next autumn, winter and spring.

Mr. Dillon: Is the Minister aware that he himself has in store at this moment 48,000 tons of superphosphates?

Mr. T. Walsh: Quite so."

Deputies

Oh!

A bit of a shock.

What is the meaning of the words "Quite so"—or have we reached that stage in gangster double-talk when "quite so" mean "not at all"? I confess that I am as bewildered as Burgess Meredith appeared to be bewildered when the gangster kicked him in the left eye last night. He would have been even more consternated if he were told that the words "quite so" meant, in fact, "emphatically not." Certainly it leaves me bewildered.

The facts are as follows. I be spoke a memorandum shortly before I left the Department of Agriculture in regard to the supplies we brought in. The history was this. A representative of the Dutch cartel came in to me some time last year, I think rather to pull my leg and bluff me, and offered me 100,000 tons of super at a price which worked out at about £9 15s. per ton c.i.f. an Irish port. I rather imagine that he thought that, under our constitutional procedure, a Minister could not call that bluff so that they would be in a position to say: "Well now, we made you a very good offer and you did not take it." Fortunately, there came under our notice at the same time a careful computation made by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann of the price per unit of phosphates from every source in Europe that could be priced at the time, and it appeared that this Dutch offer was substantially lower. I got authority from the Government to use £1,000,000 to purchase these fertilisers. I at once directed the senior officers of the Department to reply to the Dutch firm which offered us the super and to effect a legal acceptance which would be binding on that firm. I then asked the Board of the Irish Sugar Company to come and see me.

I explained to them that we had bought this 100,000 tons of super which the people wanted but that it was extremely difficult for a Government Department to distribute it because we had no machinery for retailing it to the country. I said that I would not trust the domestic manure ring as far as I could throw them and that if I could get Johnnie the dog to distribute them I would sooner it than the domestic ring. The board were solicitous to take every prudent precaution. I said to them: "If you bring in this super on my behalf and attend to its storage and distribution I guarantee the board on behalf of the Government against the possibility of loss. I guarantee the board that in no circumstances will the Government see them out of pocket as a result of the distribution."

I pointed out that I looked to the board, through their machinery, to bring in the fertiliser and to distribute it to retail distributors at a price which would go as near as humanly possible to a line ball transaction, without profit or loss. The sugar company brought it in. I undertook with the Dutch company to take so much in the three autumn months and so much in the three spring months. Despite their best endeavour, the sugar company could not bring it in in the autumn months and we lost 13,000 tons of the 100,000 tons we purchased—because the Dutch had the right to cancel it. However, we brought in 87,000 tons. The sugar company bespoke a part of that which was the high phosphate content —the 40 per cent. phosphate content super—to use in their compounds. They distributed through the ordinary trade channels. An advertisement was inserted in the paper that anybody who wanted to buy the super could do so and that we would sell it, if they wanted it, at a level price. I think it was a level price c.i.f.; then there were carriage and unloading charges, if my memory serves me right. I am not sure now, but certainly it was open to everybody to buy it.

I think that this is what happened. The sugar company distributed as much as they could. I was told there were 48,000 tons left when the sowing season last spring was over. I was very glad to have it because the price had gone up. Subsequent to my leaving office, Deputy Corry, who told the Tánaiste a fantastic story about Córas Iompair Éireann and the distribution of lime—which I will deal with on another occasion—demanded an extra price for beet. Deputy MacEntee, the Minister for Finance, kicked him out. Deputy Corry then went and bared his teeth to my unfortunate successor and frightened the life out of him. Evidently the Minister said: "I can get no good out of Deputy MacEntee, the Minister for Finance. I will give you the cheap super.

"Let the sugar company blend it with the compound manures to sell to the beet growers and you can then get the manure for about £16 a ton although the current price is about £23 a ton. That reduction in the price of fertiliser to the beet growers is as good as an increase in the price of beet, which Deputy MacEntee will not sanction." I am only surmising that that is what happened. That is the way the super went. I got it in to keep the domestic price down. If he had the super to distribute you would think he would give it to the poor counties in the West who want it badly and where it would be a great advantage to get it cheap. I have proved to the House that Deputy Walsh, the Minister for Agriculture, stated we have it when I asked him about it.

Deputy Dillon's story of the origin of this business was edited slightly. It all began at a "hooley" in America. There he met a Dutch Cabinet Minister and told him he wanted to purchase 100,000 tons of superphosphates.

There is not a scintilla of truth in that.

Well, the Dutch Minister went home and sent a representative of a Dutch firm here to see if it was serious business. The Dutch representative asked what it was for and was told it was for the land project. He went to various people in town to find out if Deputy Dillon was likely to be serious and on being told that he probably was, the contracts were signed. That is the origin of the 100,000 tons purchase.

There is not a scintilla of truth in that.

May I say that Deputy Dillon then decided to inquire from the director of the land project how much superphosphate was likely to be required under that part of the scheme and he, being optimistic, said it might reach 10,000 tons. In fact about 1,000 tons were so used so there were 99,000 tons of superphosphate which had then to be described as imported for stockpiling, but anyone proposing to stockpile anything would first of all ask where he was going to put it. There was no storage available in this country for the stockpiling of that quantity of superphosphate. So Deputy Dillon left to the officers of his Department quite a considerable problem with this purchase of superphosphate which began at a "hooley" in America and ended with a contract in Dublin.

There was, as the Deputy said, a cancellation of part of the order— 16,225 exactly. The sugar company took 37,000 tons and 6,218 were disposed of to other merchants. The balance was sold otherwise and there were left, on the date on which the matter was first discussed here in the Dáil the 14th July, 18,086 tons.

The Minister said on Tuesday that it was 27,000.

And Deputy Walsh says it is 28,000.

We have got all the figures. On the 13th of June—which is a date the Deputy should remember —there were 32,171 tons.

This is a new figure. May I congratulate you?

The Minister should be allowed to make his statement.

To date—or rather, on the 3rd of December—there were 18,000 tons.

We are not concerned about that.

The quantity held a few days ago, on the 29th November, was 23,000 tons. Now, it is not important that Deputy Dillon dogmatically stated a figure which had no relation to any fact.

41,000 tons, all told.

The Deputy has found a new figure I never mentioned.

What is the figure?

What is the figure the Deputy mentioned?

28,000 and 13,000.

Try it again. There were 100,000 purchased at a "hooley" in Washington.

It was a lucky "hooley"' for this country.

Then 16,000 tons of that order were cancelled; 37,000 tons were got rid of to the sugar company; 6,200 to merchants and 22,000 sold otherwise.

I did not get it to put in my tea.

If it is a question of whether the Deputy's memory is at fault I assert that there never were, at any stage in the process 48,000 tons in stock in the country. There was never that stock. There is no stock of 48,000 tons now. That is the only point I want to get over.

Would the Minister give us the two figures again? What has the sugar company to-day?

18,000 tons.

And 21,000 tons.

I said the sugar company had 23,000 tons on the 29th November. That is down to 18,000 now.

You said the Minister had 18,000 in addition.

The sugar company had it.

That is 41,000 tons.

The 18,000 are contained in the 23,000.

Deputy Walsh, the Minister for Agriculture, said he had Deputy Dillon's figure.

If Deputy Walsh said that, in reply to interruptions during a speech, he was wrong. Let us get this clear. Why is it important to get this matter cleared up? The reliability of Deputy Dillon's memory does not matter a rap. Deputies opposite have in various speeches referred to the existence of 48,000 tons of superphosphate, purchased at last year's price, and have created in the minds of the farmers the idea that there is this stock of cheap fertiliser available for purchase by them during next season. As a result of that impression the sale of this year's production from Irish factories is slowing down and workers are losing their jobs.

Nonsense.

A number of workers have already been disemployed in Irish fertiliser factories because of that false impression created around the country. My only concern is to get rid of that false impression. According to this communication from the sugar company there are at this moment in store held by them, 18,000 tons. That fertiliser is being sold in conjunction with fertiliser which is being imported this year, and which will cost much more, to the beet growers under contract to the sugar company, at £16 10s. per ton delivered.

So my surmise was right. The boys have got it.

At least that is the company's proposal. The advice I give to Deputies is to tell the farmers in their constituencies that they would be well advised to buy fertiliser now, as it is not likely to be cheaper next year. If they give that advice now, not merely will it benefit their constituents but it will put back into work a number of fertiliser factory employees who are now out of work and it will also help to resolve what will otherwise be a very acute transport problem next spring, if orders which are not now coming in to the sugar company or to the manufacturers of fertilisers all pour in then at the same time.

If it would help, I confirm now that the cheap stuff is infinitely better, but it is being made dear because they cannot get any other.

The Deputy can add that a high proportion of the stuff in store has rotted the bags and will have to be rebagged, at considerable additional cost. As everyone knows, fertiliser contains acid and destroys the containers if left in them for a long time.

Were there 48,000 tons?

Eighteen thousand and 23,000.

Let me put it this way. I hope the Deputy is not trying to mislead anyone. I said that on the 29th November the company had 23,000 tons. By the 3rd December that quantity had been reduced to 18,000 tons.

Has the Minister got any now? Deputy Smith said he had 27,000 tons last week.

It is the sugar company that is holding that fertiliser for the Minister. That is the total quantity of fertiliser which the sugar company is holding for the Minister.

Is there any in Wexford?

Yes. A substantial quantity of the 37,000 tons was sold to merchants. What else could have been done with it? Pour quantities of it around Merrion Street? What could Deputy Dillon do with it except get rid of it to someone? I do not care what Deputies try to convey in this House so long as they do not try to do damage—and they will do damage now by creating the impression that farmers, if they hold off buying fertilisers, can get them cheaper next year.

Nonsense.

Do not accuse me of making efforts to create that impression. All I am trying to get is whether the Minister's figures to-day or Deputy Dillon's figures are correct. Deputy Dillon says there were 48,000 tons when he went out of office.

At no stage in the history of the whole transaction were there ever 48,000 tons in store in this country.

Deputy Walsh says there were.

If he said that, he said it because he was accepting Deputy Dillon's word.

Would the Minister say what quantity of superphosphates was under the control of the Department on the 1st of June?

I have the figure for the 13th of June—32,000 tons.

Under the control of the Department?

Held by the sugar company at the disposal of the Department. There were 20,468 tons in store at the sugar factories and 11,713 in store elsewhere.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6th December, 1951.

Top
Share