Vol. 139 No. 11
I move:—
That Dail Éireann hereby approves of the Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1953.
The House is, I think, aware that under the Sugar Import Act, 1936, an Order made prohibiting the importation of sugar has validity for a period of 12 months only. Every year since the Act was passed a motion of this kind has been submitted to the Dáil.
Can the Minister say if the recent increase in the retail price of sugar was due to higher import costs or to higher prices paid to home producers?
No. The recent increase was, of course, due almost entirely to the need to withdraw the levy on sugar used in the export trade. Another factor affecting the price of sugar was increased costs within the country, but not of imports.
It was merely a shifting of the burden on to the domestic consumer.
In a sense.
What would the total increase amount to roughly for the year?
Let me explain. The position was that up to the present the domestic consumer was enjoying the benefit of a subsidy, the subsidy being made possible by reason of a levy on sugar used in the export trade. Now that international conditions have made it impossible to continue that levy without prejudice to important export industries the situation has to be rectified and sugar sold at an economic price to everybody. Last year the quantity of sugar used in export was about 35,000 to 40,000 tons. What it may be this year is, of course, a matter of speculation.
What is the total amount involved in the change? What is the total amount involved in putting ½d. per lb. on the domestic consumer?
It is a ½d. per lb. upon roughly 100,000 tons of sugar.
Can the Minister say to the nearest date for which he has figures what is the proportion of our imports now as compared with our home production?
Last year imports were 66,000 tons and home production 82,000 tons. This year it is expected that home production may be as high as 100,000 tons.
I would like to remind the Minister that the last time there was a saving to the Exchequer of some £200,000 which has been conveniently forgotten. Now, once again, the consumer is being asked to take the rap.
The Exchequer does not come into this at all and is not involved in this transaction. The proceeds of the levy on export sugar wentto the Sugar Company and were used to reduce the price of sugar sold at home. There is no question of any benefit to the Exchequer either way.
Where these adjustments take place there should be a fair balance in the aggregate as far as the consumer is concerned. If the Exchequer saves on one particular commodity, such as it did in the case of bread prices, surely the next time an opportunity arises to adjust prices the consumer should not be asked to bear the burden.
The Exchequer does not come into this at all. I think it is only fair to the Sugar Company to point out that the price at which they are producing and selling sugar is much lower than in most European countries. So far as I know there is no country in Europe in which sugar is sold at a lower price without a subsidy.
It is also fair to point out that Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll having swallowed the camel is now straining at the gnat.
What does this increase mean to the Sugar Company? I have seen some of the profits of the Sugar Company. Is there any justification for putting on this ½d.?
Without it they would certainly be working at a loss.
To what extent?
That is a matter about which we argue with the Sugar Company. The company think that the profits allowed at the present time on present prices are inadequate to permit of their normal development. I think they are adequate, but we have constant arguments on the subject.
Anybody who studies the balance sheets sees they have a profit of £77,000. They should not get any more.
That is a small profit on the total capital invested.
This impost of ½d. in the lb. works out at £4 8s. per ton. On 100,000 tons it would amount toover £500,000. It is another £500,000 taxation on the ordinary domestic consumer, a shifting of the burden from those who are well able to bear it to those who are not.
When the Deputy says "those who are well able to bear it", may I remind him that we have industries here engaged in an export trade that was worth £12,000,000 to the country last year? Does the Deputy think we should kill that trade by continuing to levy a tax upon export sugar, a tax which would have the effect of making those exports no longer possible?
Nobody is suggesing that the export trade should be damaged in any way.
That is what the Deputy suggests.
No. I am suggesting that the Minister is trying to conceal the fact that this impost is any hardship on the consumer and that the ½d. does not mean anything. It means over £500,000. I merely want to emphasise that point.
The fact is that the consumer is now being asked to pay a certain price to put a coating of sugar on the cost-of-living pill that the Government's policy has already provided.
The consumer here is paying as low a price for sugar as in any other country in Europe, and lower than most, except Denmark where it is heavily subsidised.
Were they paying that two years ago?
No.
