Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Mar 1936

Vol. 20 No. 31

Sugar (Control of Import) Bill, 1936— Second Stage.

Question proposed: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for a new method of controlling the importation of the limited quantity of sugar that in future it may be necessary to import, in each year, to supplement the production at the factories of the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company. At present the importation is regulated under the Control of Imports Act. From time to time, for stated periods, a quota of sugar is declared, and licences are issued to all registered sugar importers, to import the quantities of sugar stated in these licences, to the aggregate of the quantity which is called the fixed quota. That method of importation has proved unsatisfactory from the point of view of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the sugar importers, and it is necessary, we think, to change it. One of the reasons why it is unsatisfactory is because it necessitates a periodic fixing of quotas of such amount that all registered sugar importers can participate in it. But that may not always be necessary or desirable. It is true that in this year over a limited period it will be necessary to import some 15,000 or 16,000 tons of sugar. But for the greater part of the year, and in all future years, the quantity of sugar which will be imported will be very small, and will, in fact, consist, in the main, of a special class of sugar required by the manufacturers of certain products. If, at the present time, during which the supplies of Irish produced sugar are available, it was considered necessary to allow a single manufacturer, or a couple of manufacturers of some product to import a limited quantity of a special class of sugar, it would be necessary to fix a quota order, so that each of the ordinary importers, possessing between them sugar import licences, should be able to import some of that sugar, so that the particular importer, whom it was desirable to facilitate, should get the quantity he desires. That means that unnecessary importation would take place, upsetting, or delaying, the clearances of stocks of sugar held by the Irish Sugar Company and creating increased difficulty in the financing of these stocks.

The situation became difficult also from the point of view of the sugar importers, and, in fact, it was the Sugar Importers' Association that put forward the proposal that in their interests the sole licence to import sugar should be given to Comhlúcht Siúicre na h-Eireann from which concern the wholesale sugar merchants would purchase their supplies both in a period when home-produced sugar was available and when imported sugar was available. That will be a simpler method of administration and will ease the position of the Department of Industry and Commerce as well as meeting the difficulties of the sugar importers. That is, in fact, the sole purpose of the Bill.

That purpose could perhaps have been achieved by a voluntary arrangement whereby sugar importers would not apply for licences and in that way get over the difficulty. But as the law stands a licence to import sugar cannot be given to the sugar company and, consequently, legislation is necessary before that arrangement which is mutually desired could be effected.

There is a provision in the Bill which caused some comment in the Dáil, but which, I think, was misunderstood. It provides for the imposition of a fee in certain circumstances on licences issued to the sugar company. That was considered necessary, because it may happen that when sugar has to be imported there will be a slight difference between the price of imported sugar plus duty, and the price at which sugar is sold by the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company. It is considered desirable that the sugar company should not make any profit on the importation or merchandising of the sugar imported. That slight difference in price which may exist from time to time will, therefore, be taken up by means of this fee for the benefit of the Exchequer. That difference would be too slight to affect the price. During last year, when licences were issued to sugar importers, when home sugar was not available, there was such a slight difference in price. Sugar importers got in respect of that sugar a profit larger than was normal. The price of imported sugar, which at present is in or around 7/- a cwt. free of duty, delivered in Dublin, would have to be reduced by 2/4 a cwt., which is very improbable, in any circumstances, before a farthing in the pound could be taken off the retail price. The difference, in any event, is only a matter of pence. It is not improbable, judging by recent events, that the price of imported sugar will go up, so that there will be no margin and the price of imported sugar may exceed the price of the Irish company's product, in which case no fee would be charged. The fee is only to deal with the circumstances that will exist when the Irish output is higher in price than imported sugar. That difference went last year to the sugar importers, and were it not for the device of imposing a fee upon the licence it would go in the circumstances of the future to the benefit of the sugar company. We think it should go, if anywhere, to the benefit of the Exchequer, but the amount in future years will be very small indeed. The deficiency in the production of sugar this year is larger than will exist in any future year and, in fact, it is contemplated that in future years the only quantities of sugar imported will be those small consignments of special classes of sugar required by individual manufacturers. There are certain classes of products for which beet sugar is not the most suitable and for which cane sugar is imported instead. The other provisions in the Bill are similar to those set out in the Control of Imports Act. They propose to confer on the Minister for Industry and Commerce the same powers as he has at present under the Control of Imports Act. In fact, the sole purpose of the measure is to enable the Minister to issue licences to the sugar company only, instead of to those firms and persons whose names are on the register of sugar importers, in order to facilitate administration.

There is one small point which the Minister's explanation did not deal with. I gather that it is anticipated that normally in future there will be no necessity to import sugar from the point of view of quantity, that is to say, the production of the sugar company here will be equal to the total requirements of the country and, so far as quantity is concerned, it is only in the odd year when the yield of beet or sugar content may be exceptionally low and, consequently, the output may unexpectedly fall, that it would be necessary to import. I can quite see that to deal with such a necessity there is a great deal to be said in favour of allowing the sugar company, which is normally the sole supplier, to import whatever the amount of the deficiency may be, and to distribute it on practically the same basis as home sugar; but I gather that there may sometimes be a necessity to import small quantities from the point of view of quality. I take it—the Minister did not explicitly say it—that there are certain manufactures in which the sugar which must be used is cane sugar, and, in order to enable these manufactures to be carried on, it may be necessary to import some sugar, even though there might be a surplus on the hands of the sugar company here.

I do not know whether the sugar company undertakes, or is bound to undertake, to import the necessary requirements of those manufacturers, even though it has a sugar surplus on its hands. I do not know, and the Minister has given no indication, of what the importance of these particular manufactures are which require cane sugar, but, if they are to be certain of being able to carry on, I think some precaution may well be necessary, because, after all, the interest of the sugar company is to sell its own sugar, and if it is the only source of supply a manufacturer has it may be disposed to say: "Beet sugar would do perfectly well and we do not see that this is a case for importing at all." I do not see what difficulties would exist for the Minister in giving the import licences to the manufacturers who require these special qualities of sugar. It surely would not involve any difficulties in regard to quotas, and so forth, if he were issuing licences, not to importers or traders, but simply to manufacturers. It may be that the Minister is satisfied, and these manufacturers are satisfied, that there would be no difficulty in getting arrangements made for the import of special qualities of sugar where it may be required.

The Minister has talked about the merchants being satisfied and wanting this Bill. He did not indicate if these manufacturers, whether they are of great or small importance, have also been consulted, whether they are satisfied, and he is satisfied, that no unnecessary obstacles will be placed in their way and whether they will be allowed to import these small quantities of special sugar which they may require from time to time.

I think it is quite desirable that a company which will have a monopoly of the sugar production in the country should be responsible for the importation of whatever sugar is necessary, subject to provision being made for meeting the point to which Senator Blythe has drawn attention; but it seems to me that where there is a public or semi-public corporation such as the sugar company, which has a monopoly of the manufacture and, in effect, the sale of sugar, with the power it has, we should have a great deal more information than we have been able to get up to now as to the workings and economic activities of that company. There are laid on the Table accounts in some kind of skeleton form, according to the statute. I take it that they do conform to the statute, but they are very uninformative, and, in view of the position which this company holds in regard to what is practically a necessary of life, I suggest that we ought to be able to get the kind of information which a transport organisation provides.

We want to have some kind of analysis of the costs, prices, and so on, provided publicly instead of having to ferret out and make guesses. One reads the guesses of various Deputies in the Dáil as to the economics of sugar production and sale in terms of finance, but they are obviously estimates, based perhaps on wrong information, and the general picture which one gets from that debate is one of the Government side on the one hand and the Opposition on the other throwing figures at each other without any clear idea being given to the public of what the economic state of the sugar industry is. We are not, and henceforward shall not be, dealing with a private concern, with the purchase and sale of such sugar in the way of private trade; we are dealing with a national organisation of the sugar industry and the public is paying a high price for sugar. The public ought to be able to know authoritatively what proportion of the price they are paying goes to the Central Fund by way of ordinary revenue; what proportion goes to the company and, subdividing what the company gets, what proportion goes to the farmer, the manufacturer, labour, and so on. There at least ought to be a statistics given authoritatively and not merely guessed at to enable the public to know exactly what is being provided out of their 3½d. a lb. or whatever the price may be at any time.

I urge on the Minister that when we are dealing with a public corporation of this kind, we ought at least to be provided with the materials in the way of statistical returns which would give us as much information in regard to a food product as we get in regard to a transport service. I thought when it was provided in the original Act that the report would be made and laid on the Table by the company that we were going to get all that kind of information freely. There is no reason why the company should want to hide it. It is not a private company which is afraid of its competitors, and I do not think there should be any objection whatever to providing that information to the public. I would plead with the Minister, if only as an example for any other industrial undertaking of this kind, that we should now follow the example set by, let us say, the Electricity Supply Board. They do give information in detail now as to the economics of their undertaking, and we should have the same in regard to this company.

As a matter of detail, I would ask the Minister to explain Section 11. I am not sure whether this is a departure from the normal. It is probably a copy of a section of a similar kind in a British Act. I am not sure whether this term "for the benefit of the Exchequer" is common in our Acts and whether the Minister for Finance ought to have the power to direct what should be done with the fees. It strikes me that that is a departure from the usual practice, and I would ask the Minister to explain if there is any departure and just exactly what is intended by it.

I should like to support Senator Johnson's plea that accurate information should be given to the public as to the true state of the sugar industry, which is a very large one now. As far as we can find out, the public pay about £1,000,000 more for the privilege of manufacturing their own sugar than they would pay if they imported all the sugar that they required. I am open to correction and I am anxious for information about this matter. We also know that £812,000 went to the revenue from this sugar business; that £780,000 was the cost of the sugar imported; and that the company's share of the business is £1,372,000. These are very large figures. The farmers get a sum which is calculated at £770,185. That is not a very great deal when distributed amongst all the farmers, considering the terrible hard and troublesome work this is. Of course, a share of what the farmers get goes to the agricultural labourers. That is a very small share now considering the uneconomic price per ton paid to the farmers. The factory wages come to about £160,000. That is not a very great deal either, but, of course, the factory people have not anything like the difficult and, I might say, dangerous work of those who grow the beet. I have known unfortunate men engaged in beet growing who died from pneumonia and hardship. Only those who grow beet know the hardship of it.

I would also make a plea, as this large amount of money is going to the revenue out of the sugar business and as they are going to get a little windfall from the transfer of the licences to the sugar company, that the price of sugar to the people should be reduced. Something should be done to reduce the price. The poor people are paying 4d. per lb. at present for it. I made inquiries in order to be accurate about that, and I found that 4/- per stone has been paid for sugar for a considerable time past and that it is sold by the lb. at 4d. That is a very heavy tax on poor people.

Then there is the question of the sugar imported. To my own knowledge, a large number of beet growers at the end of the season found that the amount of beet they had on hands was more than the company's estimate for the acreage for which they had a contract to grow. These people had no intention of growing more beet than the acreage allotted to them. They sowed exactly the amount of seed they got from the company, as the company distributes the seed. Not having any means of measuring a statute acre accurately, they sowed this seed as far as it went, and it produced a good crop, according to the year. At the end of the season, however, the company refused to take the amount of beet which was estimated to be over the proper amount that a statute acre should produce, and a large number of unfortunate people, some neighbours of my own, were left with quantities of beet on hands.

That happened several times when the Carlow factory only was working and they always made arrangements to take this extra beet. If they had taken it on this occasion, it would not have amounted to a great deal, and we would have had more sugar manufactured in the country and less imported. That was a very severe hardship on the people. I hope the company, if that occurs in future, will make arrangements to take all the beet off the people's hands, even if, unintentionally, they may have more than they are entitled to have, according to the acreage allotted to them. As I say, the old factory always accommodated them and never left any beet on their hands. They may have given a smaller price, or made some special arrangement with them to take it, but they never left it on their hands. Senator MacEllin may smile at that. He is a director, of course, and does not consider the great hardship it is on these people, or he has not much sympathy with them, I take it. It is no joke, however, for the unfortunate people.

We are not criticising the factory at the moment. Do not draw Senator MacEllin into this again. We are considering the restrictions on the importation of sugar.

Last week, when the Minister was eulogising the company in the other House, I was forced to make a complaint here about the very bad treatment of the growers by the company. That was only rectified, and the growers only got the bare rights they were entitled to after a considerable amount of agitation, and after I had ventilated their grievances here.

I listened to the Minister and tried to understand how the question of the sole importer was being arranged. As far as I understood him, the object of the Bill is to place the import of sugar in the hands of one individual, or firm or company, but I could not understand whether that was to be the sugar company or not.

Yes, the sugar company.

It is not mentioned in the Bill specifically.

Yes, in the definition section.

If that is so, of course we understand it. Are they to give out the sugar to the persons who have been hitherto importing it? Is that a physical process? Do they actually take possession of the sugar and redistribute the actual sugar to the merchants; or do they settle the question of who is to import sugar? Have they a right to give out licences or will the sugar go direct to the importer?

I ask these questions, because if the sugar is all to be brought to one place at first and then shipped down the country to another place one can easily see how the cost to the public will mount up. Perhaps that is not at all what the Minister means. When replying, perhaps he will tell us how this is to be operated or whether it will tend to make the sugar cheaper or dearer so far as the charge on the sugar itself is concerned. Apparently the sugar company is going to make no profit in the transaction. Do I take it that the people who get these licences to import are to pay for the licences certain amounts which are not specified in the Bill? When we come to the Committee Stage I hope the Minister will be able to give us details of all these things which it will be interesting to know. It would be interesting to know how this principle of one single licensee is to work out. Has the company a right to transfer to other importers its licences? I would like to know from the Minister how the sugar is to be handled, and how everything is done in the way of freight. It is important that the House should know that so that no extra charges should be made on the public. It is also important to know how these licensing fees are to be paid. I do not know whether the Minister will say that this is the time to deal with this matter or that it should be dealt with on the Committee Stage. Probably all that will emerge when we are in Committee.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has so many powers in his hands that even at the present moment I have been caught up once or twice in course of this debate and told that the powers were already there and that I need not bother my head about it. But this Bill gives the Minister power to say where the sugar is to come from. I would ask Senators to look at Section 7. In (2) (b) we read:

"limiting such licence to sugar manufactured or produced in a specified country;"

and in (d) we read:

"the manner in which and the route by which sugar imported under such licence shall be brought to Saorstát Eireann."

That section gives very large powers. There is there given to the Minister power by which he can say to anybody or to any country with which we are dealing: "I will not have your sugar." This makes the position absolutely different to what the position would be if importers were buying sugar as they like, where they like and settling the price. The Minister will, I presume, say: "I have got the powers already." Probably he has, but if so I do not know why these powers are again specially put into this Bill. They are not powers connected with the distribution of sugar in this country. I would like the Minister to tell us why these things are put in the Bill and what he intends to do with these powers. I have noticed what Senator Johnson has said about this Bill. Everybody is interested in the matter of sugar. Some of us make jam at home and we know from our cooks that there is a certain sort of sugar required to make decent jam. How are private people going to get the supplies needed to make their own jam in a private household? Probably the Minister will deal with that matter in his reply. From what the Minister has told us I take it that the Bill is a necessary part of administration, and I suppose we can do nothing but pass it, but we ought to be given an explanation on the points I have raised either now or on the Committee Stage.

This Bill is entitled "An Act to make provision for restricting and controlling the importation of sugar." We know that sugar is controlled. I want to know how the Minister controls the price of sugar when it is being sold to the public. Can the company charge 6d. a lb. if they like? Can they charge any price they like, declare any dividend they wish and give the farmers what they like to pay them? I would like to know what regulations are there in order to keep the price at what it ought to be? Is it only by investigating the accounts which are supposed to be placed on the Table of the House that the public will be in a position to see the profits the company is making? In what way is the public to be safeguarded in the supply of sugar which is now being placed in the hands of one monopoly?

Senator Jameson, I think, misunderstands somewhat the purpose of the Bill. At the present time, as Senator Wilson pointed out, the import of sugar is controlled by the Control of Imports Act under which licences for specified quantities are given to a number of importers. I propose to change that system and to give one licence only to Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann Teoranta. That company will be the importer of sugar. No doubt they will arrange to deliver the sugar to the stores of the merchant to whom they will sell it, and any fees to be charged will be paid by the company. The company will sell that sugar to the wholesale merchants at the same price at which the home production is sold to them so that the price will be uniform throughout the year, something which manufacturers desire very much, for fluctuation in price is detrimental to the interests of the manufacturers. Senator Miss Browne asked what are we paying for sugar at the present time over and above what we would have to pay if we used imported sugar only. She has asked a question that cannot very well be answered. First of all, a number of assumptions have to be made. If we assume that there are no duties paid at all upon imported sugar or home-produced sugar—and both are subject to a duty—then it is correct to say that the difference would be considerable. As Senator Miss Browne stated, imported sugar is coming in here at the entirely uneconomic price of 7/- a cwt. delivered at the quay in Dublin. That is a price well below the cost of producing and delivering that sugar. That sugar has been heavily subsidised. I mentioned in the Dáil that in CzechoSlovakia, the place from which the sugar comes, the retail price of sugar to the public is 6d. per lb. The consumer there has got to pay that very high price so as to enable the government there to subsidise the export of sugar. Sugar has always been subject to a Customs duty, and, taking the Customs duty into account on the one side and the existing Excise duty that is charged here on the sugar, there is practically no difference between the price of the imported sugar and the home-produced sugar except a difference of a few pence to which I have already referred. Ordinarily, the difference is not sufficient to enable any variation in the retail price to be effected. If we used imported sugar only, the State would get a much larger revenue from sugar than it is getting. In the past, the State got a larger revenue from sugar than it is at present getting and a considerable part of that revenue had to be sacrificed to enable the sugar manufacturing project to be developed.

With regard to the importation of special qualities of sugar, there is, in fact, only one importer in that position —the Condensed Milk Company of Ireland, which is a Government concern. Only a proportion of the sugar used by that company has to be imported. Apparently, a special class of sugar has to be used in the manufacture of condensed milk which is to be exported to tropical countries. That is the only class of sugar in that special category. There is no difference between beet sugar and cane sugar in the manufacture of jams, in which Senator Jameson is interested. Various tests—scientific and practical —were carried out, and that fact was demonstrated. Other classes of sugar which, in the past, had to be imported, such as cube sugar, castor sugar and Demerara sugar, were made at Carlow during the course of the present year.

I think it is desirable that members of the Oireachtas should have full information as to the operations of the sugar company. I cannot say from memory what are the provisions of the Act under which the sugar company is operating—whether the information to be tabled is specified in the Act, or whether it is prescribed by the Minister for Finance, but to the extent that it is possible I think it is desirable that information should be given. I have, perhaps, a natural suspicion when that request for information is endorsed by people largely interested in the price which farmers get for their beet. One would have to bear in mind the demands which might be made on the sugar company on the basis of information made available in that way but, generally speaking, it is desirable that the public should be informed of the purposes to which the money received by the company in return for the sugar sold is devoted. A large part of it goes for beet, a large part goes in wages and the balance goes in capital charges of one kind or another. Any profits that may be derived, over and above the amount necessary to pay interest on the preference shares, the charges on the debentures and allocations to reserve, would go into the Exchequer, the Minister for Finance, on behalf of the State, owning all the ordinary shares of the Company. That is, I think, also an answer to Senator Wilson. The State controls the company, and if the company were to act in an unreasonable manner, or in a manner detrimental to the public interest, the State would have to exercise that control. In fact, all these charges are discussed with the Ministers concerned —the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry—and agreed to beforehand.

Who represents the buying public in these discussions? One can conceive the Minister for Agriculture desiring to enhance the price of beet to the farmer and the Minister for Industry and Commerce being anxious to improve generally the position of suppliers of industrial goods. They, with the Minister for Finance, may agree as to the price at which sugar is to be sold to the public, but who represents the public?

I am afraid that the responsibility of representing the public devolves on the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The main item which is liable to fluctuation in the costings of the company is beet.

Therefore, you keep the farmers in the dark.

The Minister for Agriculture might be regarded as a prejudiced person, so far as the farmers are concerned, and the responsibility of representing the public, therefore, devolves on the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The Minister for Finance is interested in high profits, because the dividends on the ordinary shares go to the Exchequer. He might raise the price 2/- or 3/- a cwt., and it would mean an increase of moneys to the Revenue. I want to know what check there is upon the profits the company will make. There is no limit to the profits on the ordinary shares.

Except what the Government may think right and proper and is prepared to answer for when criticised.

If we do not get the accounts, we do not know how matters are arranged.

The amount of profit coming to the Exchequer in the shape of dividends on the ordinary shares is always made public.

But we do not know the amount per cwt. of sugar.

The problem of excess beet was raised. The matter is not quite in order, but I should like to say that it would be a highly dangerous policy for the company to encourage the farmers to grow more than the stipulated acreage. Farmers may grow more unintentionally and, I think, the great majority of them did not measure the acre or two acres sufficiently accurately. It is worth noting that a lot of the statistics on which we have worked as to the yield of beet per acre have been invalidated by the discovery that they were very large acres on which the beet was grown. This year the company could have taken excess beet and made it into sugar because the company's total production is less than our requirements of sugar, but that would, certainly, encourage the growing of excess beet next year, when it would be impossible for the company to take it. The farmers would, therefore, have to suffer loss or the company would have to suffer substantial loss in so far as they might make sugar completely in excess of our requirements. It is necessary for the company to make quite clear to the growers that only the stipulated acreage should be grown.

Senator Jameson rightly anticipated my answer to his question concerning the powers proposed to be conferred on the Minister. I have these powers already. They are conferred by the Control of Imports Act, and the section in this Bill is a mere transposition of the corresponding section in the Control of Imports Act. That power has not been used in relation to sugar in the past. It was used in relation to the coal quota and the quota in respect of oranges, but I cannot remember any other occasion on which it was used. It has not been used in respect of sugar, and it is doubtful whether, in all the circumstances, it could be used in respect of sugar.

Senator Johnson raised a question as to the form of Section 11. Section 11 is, I understand, in the form in which it appears in all measures providing for the collection of fees. It is provided that such fees shall be paid in for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance may direct. It is not intended that there should be anything unusual in the form of the section. Senator Miss Browne referred to people who are paying 4d. per lb. for sugar. That may be the position in certain isolated areas, but the proper price in any of the 30 centres at which sugar is sold free of transportation cost, or of any adjoining areas, should be 3½d.

Can the Minister say the number of farmers who grew beet during the past year?

I know that 4d. per lb. is being charged for sugar in some places.

These people are being overcharged except they reside in certain isolated areas.

Question put and declared carried.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 25th March, 1936.
Top
Share