Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jun 1960

Vol. 182 No. 5

Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1959—Motion of Approval.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1959.

This motion seeks confirmation of the Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1959. Under the Sugar (Control of Import) Act, 1936, the Government are empowered to prohibit by Order the importation of sugar except under licence. Such Orders have been made annually from that date. The making of the Order must be followed by a motion in each House of the Oireachtas confirming it. Such a motion was passed in the Seanad last evening. I submit the motion to this House today.

The purpose of the Order is to reserve to the home market sugar produced from beet grown within the country There is a licensing provision which permits the import of sugar but that licensing provision is limited to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teo. They avail of that provision to import raw sugar to be refined in this country. The purpose is to facilitate the export trade in sugar and sugar goods as, without such imports, it would not be possible to engage in that trade.

The Order is in the same form as has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas since 1936 and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Cosgrave

I want to mention one matter which was raised in the course of the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce. Is the Minister in a position to state whether any progress has been made in the matter of the levy imposed by the British Government on goods which have a sugar base or content exported from this country to Britain?

The Minister is undoubtedly familiar with the very great efforts chocolate manufacturers and chocolate crumb manufacturers have made to develop an export trade. In order to develop that trade, sugar was made available to them at the lowest possible price. Unless they get sugar at a price comparable to that at which their competitors can secure it, we cannot develop this market or produce goods at a competitive price for export to Britain or elsewhere.

The chocolate crumb industry is invaluable. It uses native raw materials and is a first class product. It provides good employment. The industry should be fostered in every way. Over a number of years the problem of securing entry into the British market has been hampered by the imposition of a levy by the British Government which is contrary to the terms of our trade agreements with Britain. The Minister and his predecessors have endeavoured to have that levy removed but without success. I believe that we should continue to press for the removal of that levy which is a penal imposition on these manufacturers. It has already been the subject of consultation and discussion and I believe that we should continue to press for its removal.

These industrialists have made magnificent efforts to develop their businesses. They deserve congratulation and every assistance which it is possible to give them. I would be glad if the Minister would state the position in that regard.

Mr. Corry

I approach this matter from the point of view that there is a market here for our agricultural community which is worth £2,000,000 to us. We are paying that amount to the foreigner for what we can produce here. I admit that this levy was not fought when it should have been fought, in 1956. The levy was imposed during the regime of the inter-Party Government.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister himself has admitted that it was fought then.

Mr. Corry

I think I have brought the Minister a long way. He has come a long way since the 17th February when I was speaking to him last on this matter. There is a problem there. The problem does not lie in the reduction of price by the farmer or the reduction of the wages of the man who is paid £5.7.6. a week. That is the basis on which our costings for sugar beet are made up and it is against a figure of 3/8d. an hour which is paid to a man for a 45 hour week. There will be no give away on this matter and no give away would be any use in that line.

What has happened in this matter is that by a subterfuge the British Government have come along and put on this levy saying that there is a levy on all Commonwealth sugar. However, to other Commonwealth countries they pay £54 a ton for the sugar as against the £38 to £40 a ton that we are getting. Under that arrangement the levy that we are paying only goes to pay the subsidy on the Commonwealth sugar. That is what the levy is being used for.

I admit freely that the Minister is evidently tackling the matter seriously and doing all he can. I want him to persist in that. Now that the beet crop is in and growing for this year he has until next October to get his job done. We hope that next October, when the Sugar Company will be asking for a new contract for sugar beet. that we shall get that £2,000,000 market which belongs to us. There is no use talking along the line of a better price. Beet is the only crop grown by the farmer for which he is guaranteed the cost of production. As one who saw to that I am not going to see that position worsen one iota. We are as much entitled to that market as any industrialist is entitled to a market for his product. It is our right and I am going to see that we get it.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy Corry is fairly right about this matter and he is more moderate now than he was when he spoke about it on the last occasion. There is in existence a levy on sugar goods going into Britain from all countries, even from Commonwealth countries. There is also in existence a sugar agreement between certain, but not all, of the Commonwealth countries under which there is a guaranteed price given for sugar in respect of which the levy is used. It was considered by the last Government whether action should be taken or should not be taken to see if that levy could be waived in respect of sugar and sugar goods coming from Ireland and it was decided that it was not against the letter of the trade agreement between this country and Britain.

Deputy Cosgrave is not quite right in saying that we conceded that the last Government tried their best to have the situation modified in our favour. It was examined by them and it was agreed that the levy provision did not contravene the trade agreements, but that having regard to the special relationships and trade between the two countries it was desirable to repeal it. I want to say that there are difficulties in the way. It is a matter on which unilateral action cannot be taken. There must be agreement between the two countries and the matter has to be discussed. I want to assure the House that everything I can do is being done to see if the situation can be made more favourable to us. There will be no relaxation of activity on my part to ensure that if such a situation can be brought about it will be brought about. Perhaps too much public comment might not help the matter at this stage.

Mr. Cosgrave

If it does not contravene the letter of the trade agreement it does contravene the spirit of it.

Mr. J. Lynch

That is possibly right.

Motion put and agreed to.