asked the Minister for Agriculture what the position will be in the coming year for the letting of sugar beet contracts.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sugar Beet Contracts.
23.
The allocation of contracts for sugar beet is, of course, a matter for Comhlucht Siúicre Eireann. I understand from the Company that the contract acreage for 1962 will be about 78,000 acres, which is approximately the same as last year and that, with the exception of the Tuam area, the contract acreage for this year has now been fully allocated.
Does the Minister not consider it unfair that these contracts are limited to certain farmers contiguous to the factories? In the case of a national concern such as the beet industry, the Minister should ensure that all farmers have an equal opportunity of growing beet, if they so desire.
The Minister has no responsibility in this matter, but in any case, as Deputies will realise, this is a business effort and costs and prices and competition are factors that have to do with decisions made by a concern of this nature. Whatever we might desire in the way of distribution of contracts, these are very practical matters that cannot be ignored.
Would the Minister not agree that this industry was fostered by the Government and that it is unfair that a monopoly is now created in regard to the handing out of contracts, in view of the substantial help given to the industry by the State?
The fact that it was fostered by the Government and the community does not mean that those responsible should not make an attempt to run it on business lines.
Is the Minister aware that very many traditional growers have had their contracts drastically reduced, and in some cases completely eliminated in the past few years? Does he not regard that as unjust or unfair to the grower when fresh contracts are being given to other growers?
As I understand it, the growers are very well represented on the Board of the Company. I am quite sure that if such decisions were made by the Company, there must have been very valid reasons for doing so.
The Minister referred to the economic considerations which an enterprise of this kind must properly bear in mind. Does that go so far as to say that the Minister will approve of a contract procedure which will operate ultimately to squeeze out altogether the small grower in favour of the larger mechanised grower, which I think is tending to happen?
The Minister has said nothing of the kind. In all the replies I have given to the supplementary questions and to the principal question, I have pointed out, first of all, that I have no responsibility whatever for the allocation of these contracts. That is the position, and that has always been the position, but when I was invited to do so, I have expressed a personal opinion, not knowing anything about the background as to why decisions of this nature were made. The opinion I have expressed, when asked to do so, as to why the Company tended to give contracts adjacent to the concern is that, after all, production of sugar is a competitive business, and even if the State and the community have fostered it down the years, that is surely no reason why those charged with the responsibility of running it efficiently should not consider the question of cost, competition, price levels, and all the rest. That is my opinion on it, but it does not follow that I know enough about the background to say: "This is right and that is wrong." It is not my responsibility to do so.
Will the Minister agree that, while not arrogating to ourselves in this House any claim to run their affairs for the Sugar Company, we have some responsibility in regard to this matter inasmuch as it is a State enterprise? Will the Minister go so far as to say we are of opinion that the small grower should not be eliminated on purely economic grounds in order to make way for the larger mechanised grower?
Merely because the Deputy asks me, in the form of a supplementary question, something that he suggests does happen, does not mean I accept it, because I suggest that there is no Deputy in this House who is sufficiently aware of all the reasons for certain decisions on the part of the Company to stand up and say this or that is the case.
Can we not get agreement on this, that it is not our purpose to see the small grower eliminated in favour of an even more economic grower who can cultivate a large acreage by mechanised methods? Surely we are entitled to say, without taking this case, that it is our view that the small growers who have been growing this crop from the earliest period of the Sugar Company's existence should not be excluded from the benefit of a contract?
(Interruptions.)
Nor do I believe that the history of the Company as we know it would suggest that there is the slightest justification for such a pronouncement as that.
Therefore, we are agreed he should not.
I am calling Question No. 24.
I had risen to ask a question.
I have already allowed a number of supplementary questions.
(Interruptions.)
We will have another opportunity.