Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 1944

Vol. 92 No. 9

Adjournment Debate. - Price of Beet and Pulp.

Mr. Corry

I asked three questions to-day relating to the price of beet and beet pulp and I got from the Minister for Finance a most extraordinary reply. In one question I asked the Minister was he aware that the price of beet for the 1944-45 crop was fixed without any consultation with the representatives of the producers of beet, and if he approved of this action. The Minister, in the course of his reply, said that he 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. It will show the manner in which those prices are fixed when I tell the House that there was no discussion whatever this year between the Beet Growers' Association and the Sugar Company with regard to the price of beet.

What happened was that at the annual meeting of the Association last August a decision was come to, namely, that we should request the Government to have a round table conference on the price of beet this year, the conference to be composed of representatives of the Government, representatives of the Sugar Company and representatives of the Beet Growers' Association.

That decision was forwarded to the Government very early in September and a formal acknowledgment was received. We received no further communication and, on the 6th January, the secretary of the association wrote again asking for a reply to his communication and also asking when would the conference be held. We received a reply on the 19th January telling us that such a conference could not be arranged and that we could communicate our views through the Sugar Company. On the evening of the 21st January the prices were announced over the wireless.

The Beet Growers' Association is elected by the free postal votes of every beet grower in this country, and it represents the £80,000 farmers who grow beet. This is a time of emergency and sugar is rationed in this country. If it is the opinion of the Government that the producers of beet should not be invited into a conference when the price of that commodity is being fixed, and so have their views considered, then I am convinced that that accounts to a large extent for sugar having to be rationed here. So far as the members of the Beet Growers' Association, as representatives of the beet growers, are concerned, I do not agree that we should on any occasion present our case to the Sugar Company and allow them to put whatever face they like on it and convey their impressions to the Government.

I wonder did the Sugar Company pretend to the Minister that they had met the Beet Growers' Association? I accept the Minister's word that they did. The Minister told me: "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." If the Sugar Company conveyed views to the Minister as regards what the Beet Growers' Association wanted for beet this year, I wonder where they got those views? They did not get them from the members of the association.

The Minister states that this company is a limited liability company, and that the directors have full responsibility for the management of the affairs of the company. In January, 1943, the secretary of the Beet Growers' Association wrote to the Sugar Company asking them what arrangements they were making in connection with the sale of surplus pulp during last season. The reply from the secretary of the company stated that the pulp was being handed over to the Beet Growers' Association as usual for disposal and that the price would be the same as in the previous year, £5 5/- per ton. We made our arrangements accordingly. In September we received a letter from the Sugar Company stating that the price would be £7 instead of £5 5/-. We made several attempts to meet the Sugar Company, but failed to do so until close on two months ago, when we went to them and asked were they going to honour the letter that the secretary had written to us. The manager of the firm turned round, as cool as you like, and said: "That man had no authority to write that letter." We refused to have any further dealings with them until a full board meeting was called. The full board met the following week and they had to hand over to the Beet Growers' Association something like £15,000 to be refunded to the farmers from whom they were endeavouring to rob it.

That is the firm to whom the beet growers are to go with their case, so as to have it conveyed to the Department. It is no wonder there is rationing of sugar in this country to-day. All I say in regard to industrial development here is, may God protect this country from the types of industrialists who are no better than three-card trick men. That is the position at the moment. The Sugar Company take very good care this year to change the price of the pulp from £5 5s. to £7, a difference of 35/- a ton. I asked the Minister to-day whether he approved of the change in price and, if he did approve, would he see to it that the a difference in price, 35/- per ton, representing something like £15,000, would be given back to the farmers. Apparently the Sugar Company did not fix the price of the beet. The price of the beet was not announced to the public by the Sugar Company; it was announced by the Minister for Finance, and the change from £5 5s. to £7 was also announced by the Minister for Finance.

I think I am entitled to ask the Minister for Finance if he intends to allow the robbery of £15,000 by the Sugar Company, or whether he would insist on a clause being put into the contract, so that the 35/- per ton is given to those who buy pulp, or handed back to the growers of beet. I consider that a period like this, when we have to depend absolutely on the production of the necessaries of life by our people, is not a time for bargaining or arguing. The producers of food for this nation should have been consulted by the Government, and the price should not be fixed by the Sugar Company and a managing director of the type who endeavoured to rob £15,000 from the pockets of the farmers, without scruple and without excuse. That is my case. I should be glad to hear from the Minister if the Sugar Company saw the Beet Growers' Association so that they could put their case to him, and, if not, if he is now prepared to consider the arguments of the beet growers at a round table conference, to fix the price of beet, so that our people will have sugar next year.

Mr. Hughes

I join with Deputy Corry in protesting against the treatment meted out to the Beet Growers' Association. I differ with Deputy Corry in this respect, that I am not so much inclined to blame the Board of the Sugar Company as the Government. The resolution the Deputy referred to was passed a considerable time ago and the Minister for Agriculture was aware of it. Shortly before the price was announced a deputation discussed the matter with him. Nothing was done about it. That was a disgraceful way to treat beet growers. The Minister told the House that he was made aware of the views of the beet growers. When we discussed the matter with the Sugar Board last year, we were informed by them that they had no responsibility, but would convey the views of the beet growers to the proper quarters. That happened 12 months ago. Are the primary producers to be treated in that manner? They were denied the right to discuss price and conditions with the responsible Minister before the price was fixed. There is an arbitrary method of fixing prices and treating an important section of the community with contempt. The price is fixed in a purely arbitrary way. Costings are not taken into account and no opportunity for discussion is given with the responsible Minister or with the officials of his Department. When the price is fixed the growers' views are ignored.

I can assure the Minister that the Beet Growers' Association is anxious to be reasonable as far as the price of beet is concerned. They have never demanded an unreasonable price. They never believed in asking an exaggerated price. They always felt that the wisest policy was to ask a price that was reasonable and fair in all circumstances. There was always the possibility of having their demands met in that way. In present conditions they felt they were entitled to make representations to the Minister. The position has definitely worsened for growers, inasmuch as the cost of labour has increased. The cost of casual labour will be considerably increased because labour is scarce and difficult to secure.

The cost of production generally has risen, including machine parts, plough parts, kerosene for tractors, and horseshoes. Under the last contract, growers anxious to secure pulp, in addition to what they were entitled to get, could secure it at £5 5s. 0d. per ton, but under the proposed contract the price has been raised to £7; so that conditions under which beet has to be grown have worsened by that amount. An adjustment in price to cover that item is not an unreasonable demand to make. The position seems all the more extraordinary seeing that the Government saw fit to increase the price of sugar by 1d. per lb. At 1d. per lb. the price of sugar, in terms of beet, represents 26/- per ton. Is there any justification for that increase by the Sugar Company when there is no increase in the cost of raw material for the production of sugar? Is it fair to the primary producers of the raw material to give a substantial increase to the Sugar Company without making an effort to share even a small proportion of it to cover the increased cost of production of sugar beet?

Deputy Corry informed the House that the secretary of the Beet Growers' Association was informed that the Government refused a proposal for a round table conference. The price was announced two days later, although the Minister for Agriculture, when he received the deputation, assured them that he would give the matter consideration, and that the points raised would be fully considered. The secretary of the association did not hear anything from the Minister since, but the company proceeded to print contract forms and, I suppose, are circulating them.

In view of the appeals made to the agricultural community at the present time, and the necessity for such appeals for patriotic reasons, I think it is grossly unfair and contemptible to treat an important section of the community, as far as food production is concerned, in that manner. I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole question. Evidently he was misinformed when he stated that he was made aware of the beet growers' views, seeing that they did not get the opportunity to express any views.

Mr. Cogan rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed ten minutes to reply.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

It is evident that there is a very great difference in the tone and in the remarks addressed to the House by Deputy Corry on the one side and by Deputy Hughes on the other side. I know from past experience that Deputy Hughes can be rough and ruthless when he likes, but he did not choose to be so to-night. I must protest in the strongest way against the language of Deputy Corry in this debate. It is not the first time I had to protest in this House, but evidently the Deputy has not learned the lesson. I protest again. I think it is shocking that a man in a responsible position, such as the Deputy is in, should use the language he used towards officials of an important public institution like Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann and towards the distinguished man who is manager of that concern, when he talked of "robbing the farmers".

Mr. Corry

Yes, and the farmers had to be paid back.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy should be ashamed of the language he used.

Mr. Corry

I said that the farmers had to be paid back.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There was no such thing as "robbing the farmers" in any matter relating to Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann when dealing with the Beet Growers' Association. First of all, it is a fact that I was informed by Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann that there had been talks between the representatives of the Beet Growers' Association and the company. There was a meeting—call it what kind of meeting you like. A deputation from the Beet Growers' Association called on the Sugar Company Directors on the 13th January and discussed various matters with them relating to the business of the two bodies. Arising out of that, certain representations were made to me on behalf of the beet growers with regard to the price of beet, the price of pulp and the average sugar content on which the price should be arranged. These matters were discussed with the board.

Mr. Hughes

They were not.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I take the word of the manager of Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann before that of anyone.

Mr. Corry

We shall produce the minutes.

Mr. Hughes

And they will prove that the Minister is wrong.

Mr. Corry

The only thing that was discussed——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I listened long enough to Deputy Corry, much too long. I wish that he would learn to be a little more measured in his language; it would do his case a great deal more good. Language such as he used only tends to get people's backs up. I say to the Beet Growers' Association if they are looking for a representative from this side of the House: "Do not send Deputy Corry". Do not send him to me, anyhow, if he is going to use that kind of language. I, as Minister for Finance, am responsible for a number of things in connection with the Sugar Company—the acquisition of shares, the sale of shares, the guarantee on debentures, the nomination of directors and the presentation of accounts. All other matters relating to the business of Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann should be discussed with the company and not with the Minister. Up to now the Government has never received any personal representations from the Beet Growers' Association. It has never been the practice and we are not going to change what has been the practice now.

Mr. Hughes

That does not prove that the procedure was right.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Last year in spite of the Beet Growers' Association, we got 90,000 acres of beet. I think I am right in saying "in spite of the Beet Growers' Association".

Mr. Hughes

The Minister has offered certain advice to Deputy Corry and I think that he himself should not now blackguard the Beet Growers' Association.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am not black-guarding them.

Mr. Hughes

Absolutely you are.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They did not go out to get the acreage for us as they should have done.

Mr. Hughes

There is no necessity to say "in spite of them".

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They did not help us.

Mr. Hughes

There was no opposition of any sort.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

On that I have my own views and my own information, too. They told us definitely that we would not get the acreage. They told us we would never get the acreage but we got twice as much. We got twice as much, thank God, from the sensible farmers of the country and that gave us all the sugar that was required. This is a matter of business but apparently Deputy Corry has an objection to bargaining. Did anyone ever know a farmer not to bargain to try to get a better price?

Mr. Corry

They bargained——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Shut up for once and give somebody else a chance. I am sorry for being so rude but Deputy Corry got his chance and he will have several other chances of raising this matter, and I am sure he will avail of them, but I hope he will do so in more measured language than he used this evening. This is a matter of business between the Sugar Company and the beet growers. The Sugar Company consult the Government and convey to the Government such information as they think may be useful to the Government. They did that with me in this case and the matter was discussed by the Government. Of course this matter is very important; the price of sugar is very important. Deputy Hughes does not know why the price of sugar should be raised this year.

Does the Deputy know the position of the Sugar Company as a result of the price for beet being increased? The Sugar Company has not made any profits. It has not put anything to reserve or has not put anything by for depreciation comparable to what it should put in the last year because there were no profits. That is the position and that is why the price of sugar has had to be increased. Sugar production should be a paying proposition in this country and the fact that it is not, is not due to any lack of good management. I do not think that Deputy Hughes will suggest that the business is not capably managed but the manufacture of sugar did not pay, and even with this increase of one penny per lb. in price to the consumer it will not pay. That is the position. It is not right, then, to let the statement go that there was no reason for raising the price of sugar. As a matter of fact the additional penny will not pay the Sugar Company.

Mr. Hughes

Has the Minister estimated how much the additional penny will bring in?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have got the figures, but I have not them by me at the moment. If the Deputy puts down a question, I shall get the figures for him. Even the increase of 1d. per lb. will not make sugar manufacture a paying proposition. The Minister has not been able to get the 5 per cent. he should get on the shares of the taxpayers of this country invested in that concern. Deputy Hughes says that he or the growers never believed in asking an unreasonable or exaggerated price. I believe they did both. I believe they did it last year and this year.

Mr. Hughes

We did not get an opportunity this year of asking anything.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

As I say, Deputy Hughes knows that the Beet Growers' Association were never heard by the Government. Why should they be heard this year? I am satisfied that the Board of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann will hear the Beet Growers' Association as often as they wish to be heard on that matter. I can assure Deputies who are interested in this matter that the board of directors have fought for the beet growers with me, and with the Government through me, and through the Minister for Agriculture, on many occasions.

They put up their case in a very convincing way but then the consumer of sugar has to be considered as well as the beet growers. I, as Minister for Finance, having to think of both sides of the case, try to arrive at a reasonable price for the beet grower, a price which will not work out unreasonably for the sugar consumer. I think the beet growers this year and last year are getting a fair deal. I say they are getting more than a fair deal with regard to the price of pulp. Pulp is worth more than £7 per ton to any man who feeds it to cattle. So I am told by farmers who grow beet and who use large quantities of pulp, more than they receive in their allowance. I do not think there is time to say anything further on this matter except that I do think that Deputy Corry spoiled whatever case he had by the offensive language he used.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 17th February.