asked the Minister for Finance if he will state whether he is aware that the directors of Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teo., have refused to supply information as to the total amount of (a) salaries, and (b) wages paid annually by the company in recent years, and if he can state the reason for the withholding of such information by a public monopoly, and if he will ascertain from the company the total amount of (a) salaries, and (b) wages paid by the company in each of the years 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Salaries and Wages Paid by Sugar Company.
The Deputy does not indicate by whom the request for information was addressed to the company. As the Deputy is, no doubt, aware, Cómhlucht Siúicre Eireann is a limited liability company operating under the Companies Act. The annual accounts and balance sheet of the company, as prescribed under statute, are presented to the Oireachtas each year. In addition the company is obliged to furnish to the Minister for Finance such explanation of these accounts as he may require. It is not obliged to furnish such information to any other quarter and I do not propose to interfere with the company's discretion in dealing with such inquiries.
As regards the last part of the question, I do not consider it desirable that the figures referred to by the Deputy should be publicly disclosed.
I asked for the information and the directors at their July meeting decided not to give it. Will the Minister say what public dis-service might be caused by a member of an Irish Parliament knowing the amount of wages and the amount of salaries paid annually by a public monopoly such as the Irish Sugar Company?
I have nothing to add to the reply.
Can the Minister give any reason to the House why he would not give to a member of this House information of this kind already in the possession of Government Departments?
I can only refer the Deputy to a reply previously given in this House that the board of this company has full responsibility for the management of its affairs and that an undertaking was given when the Act was going through the House that the company would be left free to operate the undertaking as a private company would.
Does the Minister think it proper that a public monopoly, which has an absolute monopolistic control of all the sugar supplies in this country, should not disclose, either publicly itself or through the Parliamentary machinery to members of the Dáil, the total amount it pays in wages and in salaries annually?
I can only refer the Deputy to the statement which was made in the course of the debate on the Act, under which the company has been constituted, by members of his own Party. In response to pressure which was then brought to bear on the Government, the Minister gave an undertaking that this company would be conducted as a privately-owned concern.
And the position now is that this public monopoly, which is in complete control of the whole sugar supplies of the country, will not disclose to members of an Irish Parliament, to public representatives who have a certain responsibility to the people, the amount they pay in wages and in salaries annually. Is that the position?
The Deputy should have had that position in mind when he was speaking here in 1933.
A terrible lot of things have happened since 1933 and a terrible lot of things have happened in 1939. What I am asking the Minister is why representatives in an Irish Parliament to-day are denied that information.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, will he say why it is possible to disclose by means of a Parliamentary question, the salary paid to members of the board, if it is not possible to disclose the total amount of salaries and wages paid annually by the board? The salary of the former managing director has been the subject of a Parliamentary question in this House.
Because the Minister for Finance had responsibility for appointing the first managing director of the company. The Minister for Finance has no responsibility for any other appointments made by the board.
Can the Minister——
Question No. 3.