Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 1962

Vol. 196 No. 1

Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1961—Motion of Approval.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of the Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1961.

This motion seeks confirmation of the Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1961. 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, and the effect of the current order is to continue for a further period of 12 months from 1st January, 1962, the prohibition on the import of sugar by persons other than Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teo. The making of the order must be followed by a motion of approval in each House of the Oireachtas.

The purpose of the order is to reserve the home market for 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. The company avails itself of the provision to import raw sugar to be refined in this country, with a view to facilitating the export trade in sugar and sugar goods.

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 should like, while this order is under discussion, to ask the Minister if he is in a position to say what is the outcome of the discussions which have taken place over a long period between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the British Board of Trade concerning the levy which is being imposed on goods containing a sugar content exported from this country to Britain. This has been the subject of discussion for a number of years, and, in fact, this levy is, I believe, in conflict with the Trade Agreements between this country and Britain. Nevertheless, the British Board of Trade and probably other Departments concerned have imposed this levy which has operated to the detriment of Irish exporters.

Quite a number of firms have made commendable efforts over the years to secure export markets, not only in Britain but elsewhere, but so far as this matter is concerned it applies only to exports to Britain. As a result of their exertions and efforts they have developed trade potentialities there and have secured worth-while markets for goods manufactured from sugar or with sugar as a derivative.

The levy which has been imposed has been the subject of discussions for a considerable time and on the last occasion on which the matter was raised here the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that these discussions were still proceeding. I suppose in any case where discussions take place there comes a time when some final decision must be arrived at or at least the stage reached when one would expect the matter would be concluded. This has proceeded as a result of representations made not only by the present Government but by the previous Government and it has always been felt that this imposition is in conflict with the trade agreements. I know the argument on the other side has rested on the basis that because of the manner in which the levy is being imposed it is not regarded as being a breach of the agreements. In any event I believe the House and those exporters and manufacturers who have made considerable efforts to develop the trade will be interested to hear what is the outcome of the discussions.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The question of sugar exports or the question of the levy on sugar exports cannot possibly arise until we have the sugar. That again falls back on the question of the allocation of beet contracts by the Sugar Company. In recent years, particularly in the past three years, the Sugar Company have restricted greatly the allocation to the farmers of contracts for the growing of beet. The constituency I have the honour to represent is one of the best sugar beet growing constituencies in Ireland. In order that we may be in a position to export more we should be in a position to manufacture more sugar. Consequently, more beet contracts should be allocated to the farmers whose land is suitable for the growing of sugar beet. We realise that all land does not lend itself to the production of sugar beet but where land is free of eel worm and where it has been certified as suitable by the agricultural instructors and by the others in authority, the Sugar Company should be more generous.

The farmers who are engaged in the production of beet realise its value as a cash crop and much more can be done to assist the farmers in the beet growing areas. I am sure this would also be a great advantage to the farmers in Wexford, in parts of Carlow, Kilkenny and Cork. Wheat growing, barley growing and the production of other crops have not been as profitable as beet. For that reason I would ask the Minister to hold consultations not only with his colleagues in the Government but particularly with the Minister for Finance and the Sugar Company so that in cases where the Sugar Company have plans for expansion the Government will give their wholehearted support and encouragement.

On the Minister's main Estimate I hope to be more vocal on this matter but I take this opportunity of appealing to the Minister to ensure that our sugar factories will be working to a greater extent than they are. There is ample scope for a further sugar beet factory. I cannot say whether the Sugar Company have already made representations to the Government on this matter. However, if we want to do something practical for the Irish farmer, if we want to provide him with the means of raising his standard of living, the encouragement of beet growing is one way of doing it. I trust the Minister will bear that in mind.

Mr. Corry

I am rather amazed that the Leader of the Opposition is not here for this discussion. Having heard the statements of these two acolytes I should like to hear the comments of their Leader who once asked in this House when were we going to give up this idea of growing beet in this country, that if we imported sugar here we would save the taxpayer and the Exchequer £3 million which could be used to pay 5/- by way of children's allowances in respect of every child in the country. That was the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition here in 1947.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Would the Deputy quote the Tánaiste? He said the sugar factories were white elephants.

Mr. Corry

Now they are looking for an increase in the acreage of beet having gone over to Britain in 1956 and agreed with the British Government that a levy of £16 a ton should be placed on every ton of beet leaving this country. That has been used up to the moment to subsidise colonial sugar coming into Britain.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Nonsense.

Mr. Corry

I again refer the Deputy to his Leader who made that statement in this House and who stated, on top of that, that he was not sure what Deputy Norton had done but that it had not, to his knowledge, been discussed by the Inter-Party Government. The result was there.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Did the Minister for Health not describe the beet factories as white elephants?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Corry

Of course, Deputy Dillon was then Minister for Agriculture, and Deputy Dillon was not interested in beet. He was the man who said that, by closing the beet factories, we would have £3,000,000 more for the taxpayers and we could pay 5/- children's allowances, instead of half a crown. Let us examine the proposal now put up here by Deputy Flanagan in the light of that. I have here the returns from the Common Market countries. I will read them out: Austria——

Mr. Corish

Not in the Common Market.

Mr. Corry

——a system of the rationing of acreage is practised throughout the country to overcome the accumulation of stocks of sugar.

Mr. Corish

Austria is not in the Common Market.

Mr. Corry

Belgium: limitation on the acreage of sugar beet. The production of sugar is limited to 300,000 tons of which 260,000 tons are for home consumption, leaving 40,000 tons for export. The acreage is allocated to each factory area who, in turn, ration out the acreage allocated to their growers. France: a system of rationing by the grower to his factory; Spain: limitation on production.

Mr. Corish

Spain is not in the Common Market.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

What has Spain got to do with the Common Market?

Mr. Corry

In Spain, to avoid an increase in production, an annual plan is drawn up to limit the acreage so as to have production of sugar and home consumption of sugar as near as possible to being equal. Switzerland: rationing was introduced after 1945 as the production of sugar beet exceeded the capacity of the consumers; Holland: following record production in 1958/59, the Dutch Government has limited the guarantee given for the sugar price to a fixed quantity; Federal Germany: there were no limiting regulations in force throughout 1958/59. In 1959/60, a decree compelled the sugar factories to limit their sales to 85 per cent. of their 1958/59 production. This meant a large reduction in sugar beet acreage. Italy: rationing of sugar is in force since 1959. The system is fixed yearly by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

From what is the Deputy quoting?

Mr. Corry

I am quoting from information received.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

From whom?

An Ceann Comhairle

What is the document?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Are we not entitled to know what the document is, or is the Deputy the author of the document?

An Ceann Comhairle

I will deal with the matter. From what is the Deputy quoting?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

What is the document?

Mr. Corry

It is a private document of my own.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I knew it was composed by himself.

Mr. Corry

It is information got by the Beet Growers' Association in relation to our entry into the Common Market.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

May I ask if it is right, when Deputy Corry has been entrusted with a confidential document, that he should read it in this House?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know that the Deputy has been entrusted with a confidential document. It is a private document of his own. That is a different matter.

Mr. Corish

He did not say he was making quotations.

An Ceann Comhairle

It seems to me obviously a quotation of some kind or other when the Deputy reads it.

Mr. Corry

I have read out the information with regard to a number of European countries. I think I have covered all the Common Market countries in what I read.

Mr. Corish

Plus.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Plus a few that are not in the Common Market.

Mr. Corry

In the light of this information, I am quite happy that the day we enter the Common Market, if there are eight countries in it, the seven rationed countries will see to it that there will be no more colonial sugar coming into Britain. It will be seven votes to one. That, sir, is also the information we have received lately from Italy as to her intentions.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Who has received it? Who got the information from Italy?

Mr. Corry

My dear man, you are behind the times altogether. The Deputy is ten years behind, but I cannot help that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I want to know who got the information from Italy. Is that in the document, too?

Mr. Corry

That is the position with regard to the Common Market. Every one of those Common Market countries has its two eyes riveted on the 2,750,000 tons of sugar coming into England every year. Because of that, we are increasing our acreage of beet all round, and increasing the acreage even in Deputy Flanagan's constituency this year, for his information. The Deputy must not have been in touch with his beet growers, if he has any beet growers outside the bog roads. He must not have been in touch with them at all lately.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I was in touch with the people who could not get contracts.

Mr. Corry

If the Deputy would keep out of the bog roads and travel around among the farmers, he would know that the beet acreage was increased.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may discuss the importation Order on the paper.

Mr. Corry

I am dealing with a statement made by Deputy Flanagan.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy ought to deal with the motion.

Mr. Corry

I will deal with the motion also.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is what I want. It is a prohibition on import.

Mr. Corry

I see no justifications whatever for any further sugar imports into this country. I know Deputy Cosgrave is annoyed because some of his people will, perhaps, have to buy dearer sugar.

Mr. Donnellan

I wonder.

Mr. Corry

At the same time, one cannot drag on two or three pockets all the time. Those people have got their whack, if I may put it that way, in connection with the sugar.

Mr. Cosgrave

I want to get the levy taken off.

Mr. Corry

The time for the Deputy to get the levy taken off was when Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon put it on. He was a member of their Government.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Deputy has had five years. What has he done about it?

Mr. Corry

Deputy Cosgrave was a member of their Government.

Mr. Cosgrave

What did the Deputy do about it?

Mr. Corry

The Deputy was a member of their Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has told us that several times.

Mr. Corry

I cannot help disorderly interruptions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy ought to try to help it.

Mr. Corry

I am urging the Minister to have the acreage of beet here increased.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is what I said.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan should allow Deputy Corry to make his statement in his own way. He should not interrupt.

Mr. Corry

I am looking for an increased acreage for two reasons. First, our export of sugar to Britain is loaded with a levy. On the other hand, the market that we have opened in America—thank God—is a good market and can be expanded considerably. It is a market in which we get £69 a ton for sugar as compared with the £30 a ton left when the levy and the duty are finished with on sugar exported to Britain. The American market is a fine market. We have made our way into the American market and let us expand it further. Let us expand it sufficiently to enable us to be in a position—I think I can guarantee this to Deputy O.J. Flanagan—to grow as much beet as our farmers desire to grow. There may be a very slight rationing next year—I do not think there will—but, from then on, our farmers will be able to grow all the beet they desire.

Thank God, with the co-operation that exists at all times between the Sugar Company and the Beet Growers' Association we have a situation that does not apply to any other crop in this country. We have a system of costings which places us in a very happy position, as compared even with the Common Market countries, in regard to price.

Mr. Corish

With regard to price?

Mr. Corry

Yes.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

For goodness' sake, put down that document.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Do not quote that again.

Mr. Corry

I have been making the poor fellow too wild.

Mr. Donnellan

The Minister is getting wild.

Mr. Corry

I am not saying they were cheaper——

Mr. Corish

Italy is cheaper.

Mr. Corry

Most of them are cheaper. That is what I am saying. Due to the work we put into it and due to the fact that beet prices in this country are fixed on costings, beet is the only crop for which the farmer's price can compare in any way favourably with prices for farm commodities on the Common Market.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is what I said.

Mr. Corry

Another genius.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is what I said.

Mr. Corry

That is our position and that is the position we have been maintaining. I should like also if the Minister would consider the position as regards sugar from another viewpoint, the viewpoint that if we are going into the Common Market, and if we go into it within the next 12 months, the levy or duty on our sugar by Britain must go. Britain has no authority to impose a levy or duty if she goes into the Common Market, and if we go into it, that levy or duty goes and goes immediately. That will be our position. Furthermore, by seven votes to one, please God, we shall have our market there for 2¾ million tons of sugar. That is the position as regards our beet and our sugar. I am very glad to be able to state that publicly and authoritatively in this House.

As far as we are concerned, we have done our job successfully for the farming community. If our farming community or the beet growers have suffered during the past couple of years a reduction in acreage of beet, there is one person or one body to thank for it, namely, the inter-Party Government which made——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Nonsense.

Mr. Corry

—the agreement with Britain under which a levy of £16 was put on Irish sugar going into Britain. The people for whom Deputy Cosgrave speaks here, those using sugar for manufacture in this country, had, in order to have their markets, to get in cheap sugar from Castro.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Nonsense—the height of nonsense.

Mr. Corry

If Deputy O.J. Flanagan will go to the trouble of taking a ramble down to the Library and opening the December book of statistics he will find in it that over £1,000,000 worth of sugar was brought into this country last year in order that the people for whom Deputy Cosgrave speaks should not go short. Furthermore, they had to get sugar at a price at which we could not produce it, so as to keep going. That is the position.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Do not lose that document.

Mr. Corry

That is the position in regards to sugar in this country. That is why I am urging the Minister to be prepared for a very considerable increase in the acreage of beet and in the production of sugar during the next two years. He will get it, just like that: he can be certain of it.

We did succeed in curtailing the acreage a bit the year before last. For the present season, that curtailment was largely removed and, next year, please God, as I said, there will be no curtailment in the acreage of beet.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am very pleased to hear that. That is the best thing the best growers have heard yet.

Mr. Corry

I know what I am speaking about in that respect.

Mr. Donnellan

Could the Deputy not leave that to the Minister?

Mr. Corry

I do not wish to hold up the House further.

Mr. Donnellan

That is good.

Mr. Corry

As Vice-Chairman of the only decent farmers' organisation in this country, the Irish Sugar Beet Growers' Association, I am giving that information to Deputies.

Mr. Smith

I am afraid I had no notion whatever that I would be invited to cover this rather wide discussion that has taken place on sugar and beet growing and all the rest. I came here merely to seek the approval of the House for an Order that has been made controlling the import of sugar since 1936. As I said in moving the Order, the purpose is to reserve the home market for sugar produced from beet grown within this country. It is all very well for Deputies to speak about acreage and the allocation of acreage by the company. I think it will be conceded, even by those who suggest that the Minister should approach the company on this matter, that the Irish Sugar Company is regarded by them and by the country at large as the most progressive semi-State body we have.

Mr. Donnellan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Smith

If that is so, there is scarcely any purpose in suggesting that they require to be urged to increase the acreage of beet. The company are well aware that our farmers are anxious to grow more beet. Their manufacturing capacity is such that they could handle more beet and provide more sugar if it were not that other factors, over which they have no control, enter into the determination of that question. The Irish Sugar Company, therefore, had to have regard largely to the home requirement. When they receive applications for an acreage approaching 100,000, when they want only around 80,000, some system has to be devised to distribute that quota as fairly as possible. That distribution takes place after the fullest consultation with those who directly represent the growers. In that setting, as I have said, even in reply to Parliamentary Questions, it is scarcely reasonable, while lauding the company because of its progressiveness in many ways, to suggest that the company should pursue a policy which would be in complete contrast with the reputation which, in my opinion, it has deservedly earned.

Another matter was raised by Deputy Cosgrave concerning the discussions which have been going on since 1960 with the British Government on the question of the levy. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking on this matter on some previous occasion which I cannot remember, gave the information which the Deputy has stated. I am afraid I am not now able to say that those discussions have been satisfactorily completed. They have been progressing and we hope that we are nearer—that is as far as I can go—to decisions. When they are reached, the House and the country can be made aware of them.

Question put and agreed to.