asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the cost of manufacturing a ton of sugar is over 50 per cent. higher here than in Great Britain, and that the trading profit arising out of same is 100 per cent. higher; and if he will state if it is at his direction or at the direction of his nominees on the board of the company that the company has each year since its inception set aside a sum of money calculated approximately to recoup the original capital expenditure in a period of ten years; and, if so, if he will in the interests of the future of the industry take the necessary steps to secure that costs of manufacture, profit arising out of same, and the financial policy of the company conform more with similar undertakings in Great Britain.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sugar Manufacture Costs.
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the British Government under the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1936, set up a commission charged with the duties of keeping under review the growing of sugar beet, and the manufacture, refining, marketing, and consumption of sugar in the United Kingdom, and of advising and assisting the Ministry and Treasury in such matters relating to the sugar industry as may be required of them, and as a result, that great economies in manufacture and improvements generally in the industry have been effected; and if he will consider the setting up of a similar body to examine into the causes of the excessive cost of manufacture, the high trading profits of the Sugar Company, the heavy burden on the taxpayer, and the unsatisfactory price to the beet grower.
I propose to take these two questions together. I am not aware that the statement made in the first part of the first question is accurate. It is not possible in the absence of confidential costing information to institute a comparison of manufacturing costs in the two countries, but I might point out that various important items entering into such costs are higher in Éire than in Great Britain; for example, coal, coke, limestone, sacks, wages, mach inery and machine parts. These differences have been accentuated by the fact that conditions of optimum working have not obtained continuously in our factories.
As regards trading profit, the statement made by the Deputy is not appreciated. The reports of the Sugar Commission show profit on trading of £1,245,143 for the year ended 31st March, 1937, and £672,626 for the year ended 31st March, 1938, while the trading profit of Cómhlucht Síuicre Éireann in the corresponding years amounted to £394,183 and £340,649 respectively. The two trading profits are, however, not comparable, as deductions for taxation, etc., made before arriving at the figures differ in the two countries.
As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave on the 7th April last to a question by Deputy Seumas Bourke in which I pointed out that Cómhlucht Síuicre Éireann, Teoranta, was a limited liability company operating under the Companies Acts; that the powers of the Minister for Finance, as laid down in the Sugar Manufacture Act, 1933, provide, inter alia, for the acquisition of a hmited amount of share capital and for the appointment of a certain number of members of the board so long as the Minister holds a certain proportion of the share capital under the Act; and that apart from these powers, the Minister's powers are those of an ordinary shareholder and the board, as in the case of an ordinary company, has full responsibility for the management of its affairs. In reply to a supplementary question by Deputy Bourke, I indicated that there would be as little Governmental interference as possible and that the directors would be left free to operate the undertaking entrusted to them and to develop it in the same way as a purely privately owned company would.
As regards the Deputy's second question, I am aware of the commission to which he refers, but I am not aware that it had the results he indicates. In reply to his suggestion as to the setting up of a similar commission in this country, I would refer him to the answer which I gave to a like suggestion by Deputy Bourke on the occasion which I have just mentioned.
Is not the Minister interested from the taxpayer's point of view? Seeing that the industry is costing the taxpayer £1,000,000 a year, is it not necessary to see that the company operating this industry is working efficiently and economically? I think the Minister can satisfy himself that the cost of manufacture is far higher and that the profit arising out of the operations of the company is infinitely higher than that in any other country in the world and that the grower of beet is getting a relatively bad price. In face of those facts, I do not think that the expenditure of £1,000,000 a year is justified.
The Chair is waiting for the Deputy's question.
The question was——
I assume the Deputy is competent to put his own question.
It is doubtful if the Minister is interested.