I move:—
That Seanad Éireann hereby approves of the Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1951.
Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1951—Motion of Approval.
I have been asked on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to put this Order before the House. It is a formal Order which was first passed in 1936 and it has been made and confirmed by the Oireachtas every year since.
Captain Orpen
There are some points in connection with this Order on which I want to be clear. When the Order was first made to give monopoly powers to the sugar company in regard to the importation of sugar, I presume the object was to give a certain amount of protection and control to the sugar company. Over the years in which this Order has been in existence the world position has changed very much. From an answer to a question in the Dáil which is reported in Volume 123, No. 13, it appears that sugar was imported c.i.f. at a price of £49 10s. 0d. per ton for the highest grade, that is, with a polarisation exceeding 98 degrees. In the same answer it was stated that the cost in bags, ex-factory, of home-grown sugar was £46 per ton. In other words, the cost of a certain quality of sugar imported under this Order substantially exceeded the price ex-factory of home-grown sugar. I think this monopoly by the sugar company can be justified, and I am not objecting to the Order as such, but I would say that, if under present conditions, it eventuates that we have year by year to import varying quantities of sugar from abroad, possibly 20,000 to 30,000 tons, and the c.i.f. cost of that sugar is substantially higher than the estimated cost of sugar as given by the sugar factory, it obviously would be good business to increase the home-grown acreage of sugar beet. I suggest that to increase that home-grown acreage it is obviously necessary, in the light of the world position, to increase the inducement to grow sugar beet. It seems to me from the few figures that have been available to Senators that for more than two years, if not for three years, the import price of sugar has been greater than the estimated cost of production of the home-grown article. It is not easy to make these comparisons between imported sugar and sugar manufactured from home-grown beet because different qualities, different polarisation and all sorts of other factors enter into it. When the margin between the two prices is not very great somebody comes along and gives you a reason to show that one or other is the most economic, but when the difference runs into the region of £3 or £4 per ton it is not easy to explain away these discrepancies. I suggest that, with the present cost of imported sugar, it looks to the ordinary. man in the street as if there was room for a higher price for home-grown beet to induce our farmers to grow more sugar beet.
That is all right if you could have it both ways, but I did not hear anyone say, when we were importing sugar at a substantially lower figure than we were paying for home-grown sugar, that the people growing beet were prepared to accept a lower price. One hears much the same plea in relation to wheat. The fact of the matter is that, as the Senator knows, over the greater part of the period, sugar which we had to import cost substantially less than we had to pay for sugar manufactured from home-grown beet. Costs have been varying—perhaps I should not say varying because there has been a constant upward tendency in the last two or three years in the price of imported sugar, but the Senator is aware that the price for home-grown sugar beet for the coming year has been increased substantially. I think the price paid at the moment, even though I say this in the middle of an election—I am sorry Senator Quirke is not here at the moment—is a very good price. We have to import sugar, but I should say that approximately the amount which we import is re-exported as a manufactured article or as an ingredient in some other manufactured article which is exported.
The Senator will be pleased to hear that since 1947 the home production of sugar has gone up from 64,000 to 86,500 tons and the consumption of home-grown and imported sugar, both for domestic and manufacturing purposes, has gone up from 79,000 in 1947 to 135,000 tons in 1950. It must also be kept in mind, as far as imported sugar is concerned, that the taxpayer does not suffer any loss because, as I say, an amount equivalent to what we import is used for manufacturing purposes and the economic price for that is paid by the people who use it for manufacturing purposes. The Senator will also remember that we are still selling the domestic ration in this country at 4d. a lb, so that it is probably the lowest-priced food commodity.
Captain Orpen
The consumer gets the benefit of it.
The farmer who is growing beet is getting a good price for it, and, remember, the farmer is getting more out of it than the cash price. The Senator knows that as well as I do. It is worth more to the farmer to grow beet than the amount he will get in cash, although the cash price is very good. I think the Senator could only argue that the home price of any particular commodity should go up in relation to the imported price if he was prepared to concede that the price should slide the other way as well. I doubt if he will be prepared to concede that. However, this is a formal Order and the Senator says he has no objection to it. He has made his point and I am afraid it is another Minister who will have to answer that.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 3.45 p.m.sine die.