asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the sugar company endeavoured to increase the price of beet pulp to growers from £5 5s. 0d. to £7 0s. 0d. per ton on the 1943-44 crop; that it was only by determined opposition that representatives of the Beet Growers' Association succeeded in preventing this action and the money involved—£15,000— being appropriated by the sugar company; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Price of Beet and Pulp.
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that there are two prices fixed for beet pulp of the 1944-45 beet crop, viz., £5 5s. 0d. per ton to farmers who take back their pulp and £7 per ton for surplus pulp; whether he has approved of this change; and, if so, if he will see that the difference in price, 35/- per ton, is given back to the grower who leaves his pulp for sale; and whether he will have a clause inserted in the beet contracts to that effect.
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the price of beet for the 1944-45 crop was fixed without any consultation with representatives of the producers of beet, and if he has approved of this action.
I propose to take these three questions together. As the Deputy is aware, Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Teo., which was set up under the Sugar Manufacture Act, 1933, is a limited liability company operating under the Companies Acts. The board of directors has full responsibility for the management of the affairs of the company. Consequently, I cannot answer Parliamentary questions relating to the company's affairs, including the relations between the company and the Beet Growers' Association or the contracts entered into between the company and the growers. As regards the price and other conditions applicable to sugar beet grown in 1944, a Government's decision was taken approving of the terms to be offered by the company to the growers, and these terms were made the subject of an official announcement in accordance with the procedure followed in previous years. I was made aware of the views of the Beet Growers' Association regarding the price for beet in 1944 and kindred matters, which had been conveyed by the association to the company before the question was raised with the Government.
Is the Minister aware that the question of the price of beet for the 1944-45 crop was not even discussed with the sugar company by the Beet Growers' Association; that the Beet Growers' Association requested a round-table conference as between the Beet Growers' Association, the sugar company, and the Department of Finance in order to fix the price for beet; that that was only refused on the 19th January and the price was announced on the 21st without giving the Beet Growers' Association even an opportunity of putting their case before the sugar company? In view of that, does the Minister approve of that action or is that the manner in which a price should be fixed during a time of emergency as between food producers and those who handle the raw products afterwards? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I propose to raise the matter on the adjournment.
Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that the Government are taking responsibility for fixing the price of the raw material, namely, the beet, but they are not prepared to take any responsibility with regard to the price fixed by the company for the by-product? Is that the Government's position in the matter?
There was no question raised in this about a by-product.
The question of beet pulp was raised. Is it the position that the Government is prepared to accept responsibility and does, in fact, fix prices for the beet, but is not prepared to take any responsibility for the price fixed by the sugar company for the by-product?
The matter was considered by the Government and the price was approved.
Is the Minister aware that the Beet Growers' Association got no opportunity to discuss this matter with the sugar company or with the Department of Agriculture? Does the Minister think that that will make for encouragement so far as the primary food producer is concerned? Is it fair treatment to the food producer?
I understand that there was a discussion between the company and the Beet Growers' Association.
There was not.
I am also satisfied that the company—Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann—would have been happy to see the beet growers at any time they wished to discuss their problems with them.
I wish to point out that the only discussion which took place between the beet growers and the company was an attempt by the company to rob the beet growers of £15,000.
That is not a question.
That was the only discussion which took place.