I move:
That Seanad Éireann hereby approves of Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1959.
Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1959—Motion of Approval.
The purpose of this motion is to confirm the Sugar (Prohibition of Import) Order, 1959. The Sugar (Control of Import) Act, 1936, empowers the Government to prohibit by Order the importation of sugar, except under licence. An Order made under that Act must be confirmed by each House of the Oireachtas within six months of the making of the Order. The Order will expire, I think on 18th of this month, unless it is so confirmed. If it is confirmed, it will continue in force for a full year from the date of the making of the Order.
The purpose of the Order is to restrict the importation of sugar into this country so as to ensure that the sugar produced from beet will be available for the home market and that no quantity of that sugar may be displaced by the import of perhaps cheaper sugar. There is, under the Order, as well, a licensing provision whereby sugar may be imported but that licensing provision is usually reserved to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teo. From year to year, they import a quantity of raw sugar which they refine in their own factories and which is used to assist the export trade in sugar and in goods with a sugar content. The Order is in exactly the same form as it has been every year since the passing of the 1936 Act.
This Order is quite obviously necessary. The complete control of the sugar industry and the centering of it in Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teo., means, however, that they have the most arbitrary powers in the issue of beet contracts and where they are issued. These arbitrary powers have been used to the detriment of some areas and the advantage of others and largely for the convenience of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teo.
If Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teo., were an ordinary competing firm, or if there were two or three firms in the country who were the producers of sugar, the convenience of the firm itself would be limited by competition. From that point of view, I feel the complete regulation and control of the import of sugar and the issue of import licences for re-export to one body only gives arbitrary powers which are used to the detriment of the farmers in the area which I represent and to the advantage of farmers near the beet factories.
I should like to join with Senator Donegan in saying that the sugar company are being granted a complete monopoly of the manufacture of sugar, and that we are importing a large amount of cane sugar to be manufactured here that could be produced here by beet growers. In the present season, there has been a considerable restriction in the growing of beet in certain areas, and the company have said they will not allow beet to be grown in certain areas. One of the reasons given is the cost of the subsidy for the transport of beet from areas outside a 30-mile radius of the factories. The company want to get rid of that freight subsidy. Beet has been grown in several areas which I know with great advantage to the small farmers there for a number of years, and now they find themselves without contracts or with very restricted acreage, while we are importing cane sugar to the extent of up to £2,000,000 worth. The farmers should get a fair crack of the whip in the allocation of the beet acreage and I would ask the Minister to look into this matter as one of great urgency for people in his own county who have been restricted in the growing of beet this season.
The monopoly possessed by the sugar company does not affect the situation of which the Senator has been speaking at all. The position is that the output per acre of beet has been increasing steadily over a number of years, and, as I told the House already, the sugar output from beet grown in this country is used on the home market. To give an example of the rate at which output has increased: in 1958, there were 83,600 acres, producing 102,467 tons of sugar and in 1959, 79,000 acres, a reduction of 4,600, produced 129,500 tons, an increase of some 27,000 tons.
That was because of the favourable year.
And the improved methods of production on the farm, greater fertilisation, etc. At current prices, I want to assure the House that even if an increased acreage were allocated to the Irish farmers, it would not necessarily mean that a corresponding quantity of sugar could be taken up. It is necessary to import sugar of a cheaper variety in order to maintain our exports, and our exports would not prove to be competitive on the basis of sugar from home grown beet. The probability is that any increase in production at the present time would produce sugar which would not, of necessity, be taken up. However, this is a matter to which I can assure the House I am giving very serious attention. It is not an easy matter, but one of some difficulty, technical and otherwise, and I am in consultation with the company to see in what way the position from the point of view of Irish farmers can be improved.
Would the Minister investigate the action of the company in allocating acreages of wheat so that they will give preference to growers who have been growing for a number of years? I know of one leading area alone in Cork county where the acreage has been cut this year from 1,200 to 800, with a loss to that small area of something in the region of £30,000.
I should also like to ask the Minister to investigate the position regarding the false statement made by the sugar company this year. They had a certain amount of acreage allocated, and they increased the acreage five times within 30 miles radius of the factory.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Would the Senator put a question?
I shall put it as a question and I say that the company are taking an attitude of dictatorship. I know that farmers in East Cork from Youghal back to Cobh and that area who had a certain acreage grown for the past five years have been cut, and at the same time, the company has increased within a 30 mile radius of the factory by five times the acreage grown only twice within the five years.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator cannot argue the case. I think he has completed his question.
The point is that the sugar company, when it was first formed, was supposed to be for the advantage of Irish farmers.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is argument. We cannot enter into argument.
The question I put is: is it right that the sugar company do not deal in a just manner with the farmers in East Cork?
I understand that the company allocate beet acreage in accordance with acreage grown by individuals over a stated period. The allocation is given on a very strict and impartial basis. I have explained already the reason why there had, of necessity, to be a reduction this year and perhaps the year before, because, as I said, in 1959, 79,000 acres produced more beet than did 83,000 acres in 1958. The estimated acreage this year is as low as 64,000, to produce a similar quantity of beet to produce the amount of sugar that will be required and that could be consumed only on the home market.
I should like to comment on the point made by the Minister as to how the company allocates certain acreage. The position is that the sugar company have confined that allocation to the immediate vicinity and to people who did not grow beet before or who did not grow a certain acreage of it before.
I should like to make one final statement on the matter. The beet acreage allocations are made in consultation and agreement with the Beet Growers' Association, who are presumed to represent beet growers, and I have no knowledge and certainly no evidence of any unfair allocations being made.
I shall give the Minister the evidence.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator is definitely out of order.
I have not said anything at all, so I cannot be out of order, but the sugar company increased by as much as five times within a 30 miles radius of the factory——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The point has been made already.
I just wish to point out that all the people involved in this —the Chair, the Minister and the Senators—are all from Cork.
Question put and agreed to.