Vol. 258 No. 5
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware of a statement made by a senior official of the Irish Sugar Company (details supplied) to the effect that if Ireland failed to get the full sugar quota requested many jobs would be in danger; the number of redundancies his Department envisage in this event; and what contingency plans his Department have to avert or alleviate any such redundancies.
35.
asked the Minister for Finance the outlook in respect of the sugar quota under EEC conditions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
36.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will comment on a forecasted reduction in the Irish sugar quota from 240,000 to 135,000 tons and the consequential redundancies in the Irish sugar industry if Ireland joins the EEC; and what contingency plans have been made to cope with such redundancies.
37.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the effect on the sugar industry and the number of redundancies consequent on Ireland's inability to secure the requested sugar quota from the EEC; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 34 to 37 together.
I would like to draw attention to the Government announcement of 13th January that a basic sugar quota of 150,000 tons within the EEC has been accepted. This quota represents the quantity for which the Community guarantees the full EEC price and does not limit the amount of sugar we may produce. We are free, if we choose, to avail of a supplementary quota of 50,000 tons more but with a lower level of price support from the Community; any production in excess of 200,000 tons will not attract Community support.
The Government have decided that the supplementary quota will be availed of to the extent necessary to ensure that there will be no drop in sugar beet production and that current output and employment is maintained in the sugar factories.
I wish to inquire about the price of the supplementary quota, because there is real confusion here. I understood—and I am asking the Minister either to clarify or correct my understanding—that we would get 150,000 tons at the full Community price, which is of the order of £100 a ton, give or take a little—it is in metric quantities—and that we would get another 52,000 tons, that is, another 35 per cent at 60 per cent of the full Community price, which is of the order of £60 a ton. On Tuesday last I asked the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy B. Lenihan:
Do I understand the Minister to have clearly undertaken that sugar between 150,000 and 200,000 tons will be paid for at or above the current level?
The current price is £94 a ton. The Minister replied:
Yes, of course.
He talked elsewhere in his reply about Exchequer assistance, which I take to mean assistance from the Irish Exchequer to raise the price of the supplementary quota of 52,000 tons above current price levels. Is that the case? My understanding—and I may well be wrong—was that we could certainly produce an extra 52,000 tons, an extra 35 per cent, above our basic quota at the guaranteed price but that guaranteed price would not be anywhere near either the full Community price of £150 a ton or the present Irish price which is of the order of £94 a ton.
The Deputy will appreciate that the world price of sugar has a bearing on the price paid for the supplementary quota. At the moment the world price of sugar is quite high, but of course it fluctuates from time to time.
£70 a ton. It is abnormally high.
I accept that.
It is four times its normal price.
I accept this. Certainly it is abnormally high and it has fluctuated in the past. However, because of the relationship between the world price of sugar and the amount payable on foot of the supplementary quota, it is not possible to say at this stage with absolute certainty what will be the guaranteed price of the supplementary quota. Negotiations are taking place, I understand, this week with the growers in regard to the amount of acreage for the coming year. These two factors and perhaps others, but certainly these two factors, have to be taken into account in giving a precise answer to the question asked by the Deputy. I think the answer given by my colleague to the question asked by the Deputy, and which he has quoted, represents the optimum position which we would like to achieve, but because of the uncertainties which I have mentioned about the acreage and about the world price, I cannot say with certainty what the price would be.
Could I ask the Minister to explain that a little further? What is the significance of the reference in the other reply to Exchequer assistance? The clear impression of the House, and we cross-examined the Minister again and again to make sure there was no catch in it, as there very often is in a reply, was that there would be Exchequer assistance provided to such a degree that the marrying of these two prices would yield the Irish price. That, roughly speaking, would mean that the price for the supplementary 52,000 tons would have to have an Exchequer grant of £20 a ton to bring it up to £80. Is it the case that this is a complete fiction in the mind of either the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister who replied for him that we are not entitled to give an Exchequer subsidy or is the Minister's reply today incomplete because the two replies are totally incompatible in their present form?
I do not accept that the two replies are incompatible.
Would the Minister like to reconcile them?
I have, I think, reconciled them.
The Minister has not.
It is not certain but there is some doubt as to the position of an Exchequer grant under the EEC regulations.
Indeed. We did not hear that the other day.
Therefore, because as I say there is some doubt about it, I cannot say with certainty that an Exchequer grant will come into this. I am trying to convey to Deputies that it is too early to give any firm answer on what the actual price in relation to the supplementary quota will be.
Surely the Minister appreciates that the statement he has now made that there is some doubt about the giving of an Exchequer grant to boost the price level on the 150,000 tons is a major statement to make to this House, particularly in the context of the unrevised statement made by Deputy Lenihan last week? He said that if we availed of the Common Market guaranteed price up to 150,000 tons the 35 per cent contribution that would be made to us for the balance, together with whatever Exchequer assistance would be given by us in that event——
The Deputy is quoting and we cannot have quotations at Question Time.
I am not quoting. The Minister said that we can marry the EEC price with Exchequer assistance to ensure that the maximum price is available.
This is developing into an argument. I am calling Deputy Esmonde to ask his question.
Could the Minister give us a straight answer to one question? What will be the level of Exchequer subsidy to the Irish Sugar Company for next year's campaign and that of the year after as of current estimates because this is the question which I am sure the board of the Sugar Company and the growers are very interested in.
That is a long statement.
It is information which everybody is looking for.
The Deputy is making a statement. I am calling Deputy Esmonde to ask his question.
May I reply to that statement before Deputy Esmonde asks his question as I may forget the reply I want to give?
Is the Minister replying to Deputy Lenihan's statement?
I am replying to Deputy Desmond's statement which implied that there was some contradiction between what I said about some doubt existing under the EEC regulations as to the ability of the Exchequer to contribute and what the Minister for Transport and Power said.
A flat contradiction.
In fact, there is no contradiction. Let us be reasonable about it. He referred to an Exchequer contribution. I have not said that there will be no Exchequer contribution so how can there be a direct contradiction? May I point out to Deputies that even if it should turn out that the EEC regulations are to the effect that no Exchequer contribution can be made the ingenuity of man is almost inexhaustible. I do not want to say any more than that.
As I understand the position, and I do not hold the Minister entirely responsible for this, the maximum £100 per ton that growers in this country can obtain is up to 150,000 tons. Is it not a fact that the Irish negotiations were delayed after the British negotiations, that the British had a considerable problem in relation to their Commonwealth preference and so forth and that they were allowed a very big quota of 900,000 tons? Is that not largely responsible for the fact that we can only get the full price for 150,000 tons?
No. I think the position is if our quota had been worked out on the same basis as the British quota we would have had a smaller quota than the 150,000 tons. In fact, what we have achieved is far better than anything we have ever done before in the way of the production of sugar.
It is very relevant in consideration of this matter.
It is only very relevant in winning a referendum.
It is very relevant to beet growers.
I am allowing one final supplementary.
This is a final supplementary. The Chair at the start of Question Time asked the co-operation of Deputies in regard to questions. There are 289 questions. The Chair asked for co-operation and the Chair must now impose its own will in regard to the matter of supplementaries.
I hope that both the Minister and yourself will find this supplementary helpful. In view of the fact that the statements on Tuesday were made by Deputy Lenihan when speaking for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and possibly speaking in an area with which he was not entirely familiar, and where we pushed him, I am satisfied there is a real conflict between what Deputy Lenihan said on Tuesday and what the Minister for Finance has said now. If we put down a question today in the names, perhaps of Deputy FitzGerald, Deputy Desmond and myself will the Minister make a full statement on the matter in the near future and let us have another bite at the cherry because this is not the right time to pursue this further?
Might the Chair point out to Deputies that there will be an opportunity for an economic debate on the White Paper which will deal with all aspects of this matter?
May I reply to that supplementary and say that I have made as full a statement as I can as of now. As I pointed out to Deputies, there are a number of factors operating in this which do not enable me to make a positive statement—the factors I mentioned—but as far as I know because of the fact that the negotiations are going on about next year's crop it should be possible fairly shortly to have a full statement of the actual acreage and the price.
That is not what we asked for and that is not where the conflict occurs.
We are not talking about this year. We are talking about the years ahead.
Let us get this straight. The Minister for Transport and Power said: "... we can marry the EEC price with Exchequer assistance ..." Is that a lie? He also said: "This lies in our hands to do."
This is developing into an argument. There cannot be an argument at Question Time. I am calling Question No. 38.
Is this statement true or false?
It is false.
Therefore, Deputy Lenihan's statement is false?
Deputy FitzGerald is very ill-advised in his choice of words.
I am asking if the statement made is true or false?
It is false.
Deputy Lenihan's statement is, therefore, false.
There is not going to be an argument at Question Time.
They want to leave this misapprehension until next May.
The Chair does not seem to have any function in the House. Deputies are continuing on their own.
As a representative of the Irish Beetgrowers' Association, I should be entitled to ask some questions. This is a very important matter.
A great many supplementary questions have been asked on this matter.
The only thing I will say about this matter as a representative of the growers is that they are all dissatisfied with the way the negotiations were conducted.
The Deputy is making a statement. He is not asking a question. I am calling Question No. 38.
