asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state the name of any Deputy or Deputies connected with the company in charge of the Roscrea meat factory, and further, if he will state the names of all the directors of the said company.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Roscrea Meat Factory.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if the proprietors of the Roscrea meat factory have intimated to the Minister that it is their intention to enforce the penalty or compensation clause in the contract which the Minister made with them.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if the contract entered into by him with the Roscrea meat factory was, before being signed, brought to the notice of the law advisers of the Government and sanctioned by them.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will produce the documents referred to in Dáil Éireann on the 9th February as proving that the contract made with the Roscrea meat factory was a much better proposition than an alternative scheme.
I propose to take questions Nos, 18, 19, 20 and 21 together.
The directors of the company are Mr. R. Briscoe, T.D.; Mr. C.D. Crowley, Mr. J.D. Crowley and Herr G. Fasenfeld, who is managing director.
In my reply to a question by Deputy Wall on the 16th February, I dealt with the Government liability under the option agreement and also with the Government liability in respect of expenditure incurred in extending the factory. Because of the small number of cattle which farmers have offered for delivery to the factory this spring, I gave the company notice last week of my intention not to deliver any more cattle this season after the campletion of the collections now in progress. The compensation payable to the company by reason of determination of cattle supply will be assessed in accordance with the appropriate provision of the option agreement.
The contract with the factory was, in the ordinary course, referred to and dealt with by the law advisers of the Government before it was signed.
I am not prepared to produce the documents dealing with the alternative schemes which were considered. The following particulars will, however, enable a comparison to be drawn between the various schemes:—
Alternative proposals were submitted by two firms, which I will call A and B.
Firm A could deal with only 200 animals per week, which it was proposed to have slaughtered at a public abattoir. The firm was not disposed to undertake the slaughter of animals.
Firm B were prepared to deal with 20,000 cows per annum but they required the Government to make themselves responsible for:
(a) collection, transport and lairage of the animals;
(b) the provision of a sum of from £18,000 to £20,000 for reorganisation and equipment of the firm's plant;
(c) the provision of an export bounty on such by-products as might not be absorbed by the home market;
(d) an advance to the firm from week to week to cover wages and manufacturing charges until such time as markets were found and the products sold.
This firm also required remuneration for expenses in running the scheme and proposed to keep a record of such expenses and to place the balance of either profit or loss, after payment of agreed remuneration to them, against the Government's account, and on the termination of the scheme either to return the plant to the Government or to buy it, as might be agreed upon.
And to give any profit accruing to the Government?
Yes. The Roscrea meat company's proposals embodied:—
(a) An undertaking to provide buildings and machinery at an estimated cost of £20,000, of which 25 per cent. would be found by the promoters, and to have the factory working within three months of the date of the preliminary agreement with the Government;
(b) payment by the company of the freight charges on cattle railed to the factory;
(c) provision for dealing with 1,000 cows per week after the first 18 weeks of the working of the factory and for 1,200 cows in any one week in respect of which the Minister had given a fortnight's previous notice.
The company were in a position to find an external market, not only for their edible products but also for their non-edible products, including such quantity of meat meal as was not absorbed by the home market. They could, therefore, operate their factory on more favourable terms to the Government than Firm B. They were also prepared to give the Government the right to withdraw from the scheme within the first, second, third or fourth years of operation on payment of appropriate compensation and, at the end of the fourth year, to give the Government the option of buying them out.
I may add that the Roscrea company did not seek and have not had a monopoly of the supplies of uneconomic cows. Such cattle have also been supplied on exactly the same terms and to the extent of their requirements to two other firms who were engaged in similar business prior to the establishment of the Roscrea factory.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, was it with the Minister's approval that the Roscrea company disposed of some of these old and uneconomic cows in the form of canned meat for human consumption on the Continent?
Yes; everything had to be approved.
That was with your approval?
Yes.
Would the Minister have approved of the disposal of some of these old and uneconomic cows on the Continent in the shape of fresh meat for human consumption?
No; I do not think so.
Were any of the cattle sent to this factory, in fact, diseased to the Minister's knowledge? Is it not so that what the Minister intended to send to the factory were tubercular cows? Was it with his approval that canned meat was made out of these tubercular cows and then sold on the Continent as an Irish meat product?
Will the Deputy say that outside the privileged position of this House?
He will do as much damage as he can anyway.
Let him go ahead. Nobody minds him. Every butcher may buy tubercular cows, but they are rejected as unfit for human consumption by the veterinary inspectors. The same thing was done in Roscrea.
The Minister says that these old cows were examined by veterinary inspectors, that a certain number of them were approved for human consumption and that a certain number were condemned for conversion into meat meal?
Yes.
Could those that were approved for human consumption have been exported as fresh meat?
They could.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, would the Minister say when this scheme was undertaken that it was with his approval or with departmental approval — I am very anxious to find out who is exactly responsible because——
The Minister is responsible in the matter.
I should like him to say whether it was departmental— who is responsible exactly for approving of the scheme by which the State lost so much money?
What was the price received per cwt. for this tinned meat?
I do not know. I am not entitled to get that information.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state what were the profits of the Roscrea factory from the date on which it commenced operations to the 31st January, 1938.
I am not in a position to state what were the profits of the factory up to the date mentioned in the question. I have been furnished with statements of accounts, as certified by the company's auditor, from the establishment of the company to 30th July, 1936, in which period is included the first 12 months' operation of the factory, and also for the period ended 30th July last covering the second 12 months' operation of the factory. These statements show that, after provision was made for income-tax, corporation profits tax, bad or doubtful debts and for debenture redemption reserve but before any allowance was made for depreciation of premises, the profits for those two periods amounted to £6,181 and £27,681 respectively.
Has the Minister had these accounts audited by an independent auditor?
The accounts were done by a public auditor.
Have they been done by any auditor of the Minister's Department or any auditor of his appointment?
No.
Does the Minister intend to have them so audited in view of the fact that an Exchequer liability arises out of these accounts?
No, I think we will accept the public auditor's statement.
Surely the Minister should have them audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General or a departmental auditor, in view of the fact that an Exchequer liability arises out of the accounts?
I do not know how the Comptroller and Auditor-General will look at the matter. He may wish to examine them.
Will the Minister have the accounts laid before Dáil Éireann?
I am bound under the Act to put certain things before Dáil Éireann.
The Minister informed us on a previous occasion that the amount of compensation depended on the profits made by this firm.
Yes.
The Minister is aware that a profit and loss account can be made to show a large or small profit in accordance with the will of the board of directors to bring a larger or lesser sum to fixed charges. Does the Minister not think it essential, when he comes before the House for money, as he has done, to pay compensation to this factory, that he should bring before the House the profit and loss accounts of this company so that they may be inspected by Dáil Éireann?
Yes, I agree with the Deputy that, if compensation is payable, one of the factors on which it is based is the profits. Naturally, my Department will not accept accounts without examination, but I do not know about an independent auditor, because the accounts have been audited by a public auditor and I think we can take his balance sheet. We might perhaps discuss or dispute certain items on the balance sheet.
Will the accounts be laid before Dáil Éireann?
Certain extracts from the accounts, including the profits, must be laid before the Dáil.
Will not all the accounts be laid?
I am not sure how the Act stands. We are only entitled to get certain things from the company.
Lest there should be a misunderstanding, the Minister has already paid an instalment of a penalty. He knows that there is outstanding a contingent liability. That liability is contingent on the profit and loss account of this company. If the Minister is coming before us for further money to complete the payments under this indemnity does he not think himself bound to bring before the Dáil the profit and loss accounts of the company?
Certainly. The Act laid down that certain extracts from the accounts must be presented to Dáil Éireann. In making the agreement with the company it was put into the agreement that the company must give me those particulars. They will, of course, be laid before Dáil Éireann.
Will the Minister be in a position to tell us what is the price per cwt. for this tinned meat on the Continent?
I do not know that that is one of the particulars we can insist upon.