asked the Minister for Agriculture (a) whether, by letter dated 31st December, 1964, his attention was directed on behalf of a number of members of the fruit importing trade to the facts that despite an embargo on the importation of apples a considerable number were lying at the Port of Dublin, having been ordered by seven particular importers who had ordered them to be delivered there notwithstanding the embargo and who subsequently applied for licences to import them; and that the granting of licences in those circumstances would be grossly unfair to at least 20 other firms of the fruit importing trade; and whether he was asked, in the interest of fair dealing that licences would be granted in such a way as would ensure that the seven particular importers referred to would not gain an advantage at the expense of their competitors and of the purchasing public by the grant of licences which would enable them to sell the apples which they had ordered during the embargo; (b) whether, by letter dated 6th January, 1965, he intimated to representatives of the 20 firms who had respected the embargo that licences were being granted to all fruit importing firms as from 8th January, 1965, with a consequential advantage to the seven firms who had already 13,000 boxes approximately landed at the docks; (c) whether he is aware that this advantage, which was created by his action, placed the seven firms in question in the position that they alone had apples immediately available for sale, while their competitors had now to arrange the importation of apples which has taken 28 days; and that in consequence these seven firms made a very substantial adventitious profit at the expense of their competitors and the purchasing public; and (d) whether he will lay copies of the correspondence before the House, and undertake that such preferential treatment will not again occur in connection with the importation of fruit.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Apple Import Licences.
The full facts are as follows:
In October, 1964, the Wholesale Fruit Importers and Distributors Association, whose members handle about threequarters of the total volume of our apple imports, approached me about licences to import apples from sources other than the UK. I indicated that I would not be prepared to give licences until satisfactory arrangements had been made for the disposal of the home crop and that if the importers could make arrangements to take up the remaining amount of home grown apples still in stock I would then grant the import licences sought. The importers association then entered into negotiations with the home growers represented by the Apple Growers Association and the NFA.
These negotiations continued through November and December. Towards the end of December, I was informed by the Wholesale Fruit Importers and Distributors Association that, in anticipation of a successful outcome to these negotiations and because of a threatened shipping strike in the USA, they had ordered supplies of US apples, some of which had arrived. They pressed me to issue licences but I informed them that I could not do so until the arrangements referred to for the purchase of the home-grown crop were made. Import licences were not therefore granted for these apples. On 6th January, I was notified that agreement had finally been reached between the Importers' Association and the Apple Growers Association for the purchase of remaining stocks of home-grown apples. This agreement was conditional on the importers' side to the grant of licences for the early importation of a limited quota of foreign apples.
I decided that it was advisable to grant licences for the early importation of a limited quota of foreign apples having regard to the agreement reached between the Apple Growers Association and the Wholesale Fruit Importers and Distributors Association, who, as I have said, represent the bulk of the trade. All regular importers received licences, including firms which had undertaken no commitment in regard to purchase of home-grown apples. In addition, the President of the Wholesale Fruit Importers and Distributors Association announced on 9th January that importers who wanted foreign apples would be given them at cost price if they agreed to take a share of the home-grown crop which the Association members had purchased. This put all concerned on an equal footing.
Would the Minister agree that I am correct in interpreting his reply as endorsing what is suggested in one paragraph of the question I put to him to the effect that the result of what was done by him and his Department was that seven firms obtained for themselves a profit of from £1 to 25/- per case and the public had to pay 20/- to 25/- per case more for the apples than they would have had to pay if licences had been given, as requested, to the people on whose behalf I put down this question? Does the Minister agree that should not happen and would he further agree that, on the correspondence, the Co-operative Fruit Importers Limited were ignored except to the extent that they got licences at a time when it was impossible for them to get apples while their competitors, to whom the Minister has referred as the Wholesale Fruit Association, because they had ignored the embargo that existed and brought in apples in anticipation, as the Minister said, of getting licences, were able to reap this adventitious profit at the expense of competitors and of the public?
All that is completely misleading. First of all, the situation is, and I could take my stand on this alone, that all the normal importers of apples got licences on the same date in proportion to their previous performance. In so far as I did that as Minister for Agriculture, I discharged my obligation to be fair to each member of the trade. But the situation is much more complicated than that. These negotiations between my Department, on the one hand, the importers and the home growers, on the other, went on for over a period of two months and everybody in the trade knew that sooner or later licences would have to be issued for the import of apples from sources other than the UK. It was only a question of when would they be issued. I took the view that no licences should be issued until I could be satisfied that the home grower had been satisfactorily fixed up and that arrangements had been made for the purchase of all the outstanding home-grown stocks.
I said to the importers: "When such a point is reached and when I am satisfied that all the stocks on hands at home have been purchased, then I shall consider the issue of licences for a limited quota of foreign apples."
That is precisely what happened. The only complicating factor in the situation was that at a point in time the importers' association thought, and with some justification, that they had succeeded in making a deal with the home growers. On that basis they went off and imported a certain quota of apples. Even though those apples arrived on the quay, when I was informed that the deal still had not been concluded I refused to issue licences for them. Only when I was finally satisfied that satisfactory arrangements had been made for the purchase of the home crop did I decide I would issue licences. On that date I issued licences to all concerned—the people who had purchased the home-grown stock and the people who had not—in fair proportion.
The Minister has not answered paragraph (d) of my question: whether he will lay copies of the correspondence before the House. I shall leave the rest out at the moment, the rest being whether he will undertake that such preferential treatment will not occur again. He has not answered paragraph (d). It is quite clear, I think the Minister will agree, that there is a certain amount of complication that cannot be dealt with here in question and answer. Will the Minister lay the correspondence in connection with this matter before the House so that the public may see where the truth lies and ascertain whether or not something was given to a particular small group of seven people who took an advantage at the expense of the public and of their competitors?
That is a completely unfair way of putting it.
Will the Minister lay the correspondence on the Table of the House?
The Deputy talks about a small group of seven firms. In fact, this group about whom he is talking are responsible for the import of about 80 per cent of our requirements. They are not a small group.
That is denied.
They are the principal importers involved in the apple situation. This group did not receive any advantage over anybody. They came along and were prepared to make arrangements to purchase the home crop, which the other people for some reason were not.
That is not so. I am informed they were prepared but did not get the chance. Will the Minister lay the correspondence on the Table of the House?
I am going to have my say. If the Deputy doubts me about the purchase of the home crop, let him ask the Dungarvan people, the NFA or any of the other bodies involved.
I have a letter before me from the people on whose behalf I am asking the question, Co-operative Fruit Importers Limited, to Dungarvan saying they were prepared to take the apples.
On the 9th January.
Will the Minister answer my question about laying the correspondence on the Table of the House so that the public may judge?
I am afraid Deputy Costello is deliberately trying to mislead the House in this matter.
Surely that is not an orderly observation?
Deputy Costello suggested I was not telling the truth about this matter.
Order! This matter is becoming a debate.
With regard to Deputy Costello's remark that he has a letter from this co-operative society to the effect they were prepared to purchase the Dungarvan apples, the position is that that letter was issued after the Dungarvan apples had already been bought by the other association.
They never got a chance to buy them.
They did. I am surprised. I do not mind Deputy J.A. Costello coming in here speaking to a brief because I do not think he knows enough about this situation, but I am surprised that Deputy Lynch, who should be in favour of the apple growers in County Waterford, should come in on his side.
I certainly am in favour of them.
Question No. 71.
All the complications arose out of my determination to protect the home growers.
Is the Minister aware——
I have called the next question.
I did not hear Deputy Lynch's last remark. I cannot allow misleading statements to go unanswered.
I cannot allow this to become a debate, and that is what it is becoming.
Deputy Lynch knows full well that this arose out of my anxiety to protect the Dungarvan apple growers.
I did not want the Minister to give the licence at all when he did give it.
I did not give the licence until I was satisfied all the home apples were bought.
Question No. 71.
The situation was that there were apples landed on the Dublin quay and I still would not give them a licence until I was satisfied that the Dungarvan growers had got a good price for their stock.
They knew how to sell them. They would not require any lessons from Deputy Allen.
I know damn well who brought the apples in.
I am ruling that only Question No. 71 will be dealt with now.