Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 1962

Vol. 198 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Sugar Manufacture (Amendment) Bill, 1962—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I was commenting on the extraordinary manner in which this whole question is being discussed and the suggestion by a number of members of the Opposition that in some way or another, the proposal by the Minister would seem to suggest that where the State puts behind the enterprise its financial resources, it was in some way acting unfairly and that a publicly-owned organisation, when it competed against private enterprise, was taking advantage of the size of the private enterprise and in that way was doing something not quite creditworthy.

What the Deputies do not seem to understand is that in this issue very serious repercussions are involved. In the case we are talking about, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, for instance, the very fact that the Government came to the rescue of private enterprise food-processing here in Ireland may have saved the private fortunes of the handful of people involved in the industry because it does not concern the worker. The worker gets as much, and possibly more, working for a State concern. He is not affected. The only people affected are a tiny minority who might be run into the ground as a result of the competition of the State company.

If a handful of people are put out of business because the enterprise is a tiny and inefficient one which has failed to use automation or mechanisation or failed to develop its markets, that is only the concern of a minority. Restricting the right of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann to operate in the home market has had repercussions on a very much wider scale where the public are concerned. The end result of this restriction has been that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann have been prevented from going into the market. The result is that the public are denied access to presumably a better product— otherwise, private enterprise would not be frightened of it—a cheaper product and a good quality product and, broadly speaking, a more competitive product than that of the private company. If it were not more competitive, this howl would not go up from the people that they would not be able to stand up to competition from the State-owned company.

This is very much more serious than Deputy Barry's suggestion that a few people might lose their industries and might consequently go out of business. It is quite wrong to suggest that the minority might lose on this. An operative in the industry could not lose. The industry has to go on. As a consumer, he also gains. It is a particularly retrograde fact that a publicly-owned company such as Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann were called upon by their own Government to restrict sale to the public of a better or more competitive product in order to save the private incomes of a minority of individuals. It is, of course, a criticism of the fact that the public has not been truly represented by successive Governments which have operated in our society over the years.

The suggestion that it is not fair for this State company to compete against the private company is treating the whole matter in a completely frivolous way, as if the whole business were a kind of game in which we did not play fair because we produced a more experienced team in some sort of football match, boxing match or some other kind of match. It is not that. It is a very serious thing, indeed. The difference between these two points of view represents the difference between a national income of four per cent. going up to nine, ten or 11 per cent. The difference in that as far as the public are concerned is the greatly improved standard of living which would result if we were to extend the scope of the public company on the lines of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann.

It is not our fault if the private enterprise company has not expanded and if it has not mechanised itself and provided the money with which to buy the equipment to make itself competitive, not only on the home market but also on the foreign market. The failure in this industry is particularly regrettable because the food-processing industry, above all others, was a natural from the point of view of development by our Governments since the State was formed. It is a natural for the reason that it was based on rural Ireland and on the agricultural produce of rural Ireland. If these industries had been based 20, 30 or 40 years ago on the general principle of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, we would now have a magnificent industrial potential instead of the appallingly inept type of industrial infra-structure of which we have heard repeated indictments.

The obvious advantage of having the raw materials of one's own industries should surely be self-evident. Instead of that, we have these other absurd industries which, as we have been told recently, in many cases will have to cut down the number of persons employed by as much as one-third or, in some cases, completely close down altogether. The really regrettable fact is that this whole development did not take place 20 or 30 years ago. Political leaders, through the television, radio and newspapers, tell us that we are ready to get up and at them as far as competing with allcomers in Europe is concerned.

Most of us believe that to be a completely absurd proposition but it is made by the Government, Government spokesmen generally and their various economists. We are told that we can stand up to open competition from the Germans, the French, the Italians, the Dutch, the Danes and the British. At the same time, our own State-owned company, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, are not allowed to interfere with the home market, to compete in the home market because it might put the home market out of business. Deputy Barry, who apparently has some expert knowledge, supported that point of view. He said the State company would steamroll our tiny food-processing industries into the ground. He is probably correct in that, but then where is the truth? If we are rearing to go, as the Taoiseach keeps telling us, if we are ready to go into Europe to compete against all these various countries with their expertise and their technological know-how, equal to the best in the world, how is it that we are not equal to poor little Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, our own State company? Why is it we cannot stand up to that company if we are ready to meet the giants of Europe?

There is a transparent contradiction in all this. I believe there is a transparent dishonesty in it all. It, of course, is based not on any acceptance by the Government that a State company is superior in its operations, or more efficient in its administration or in its tendency, to go and look for business and to try to get the optimum measure of efficiency in the enterprise, but to the Government's fear of those whom they are anxious to protect in the food processing industry here. Naturally the consumer suffers in the fact that he is clearly getting a less competitive commodity. The small farmers suffer in so far as they have been too damned lazy to get into the high level of efficient production over the years when they have had protection in order to maximise production.

The result of that is that we have really quite a limited amount of production going into these limited factories because they have restricted their output to the relatively tiny home market. In our consideration of markets, we must remember that at the moment two out of three people in the world go to bed hungry each night, and think of that unlimited market. In face of that, let us remember that private enterprise here over the past 30 years has made no serious attempt to get even the one-hundredth part of the market of a small part of a province of India, Ghana, the Middle East or Nigeria, so desperately in need of consumer goods.

Instead of that, we have operated behind our tariff walls. Behind them we have insisted on restrictive trade practices which have fixed the prices for the consumer against which he has no protection whatsoever. I do not know what the political leaders think their functions are in society, whether it is to protect a wealthy minority, their industries and profits. That must now come to an end when we enter the Common Market because we will meet competition which we never had before, but at the same time it has meant here that there has been, first of all, exploitation of the consumer and, secondly, a failure to develop export markets which would have doubled, trebled and even quadrupled our national income over the years.

Obviously, it is the superiority of the public company in relation to agriculture, demonstrated in the magnificent marketing systems, the magnificent organisation of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann in the supply of seeds, of fertilisers at attractive prices, the zoning of its growth, the certainly of the price, the guarantee of market and outlet, that provides the best example of how markets should be exploited. Nobody can reasonably object to that approach to the question. Anybody who knows anything about the turkey producer or the person growing vegetables, or the egg or pig producer, anybody who knows anything about our own Dublin city market, could not help knowing the absurd, chaotic marketing conditions for the sale of potatoes, cabbages, cauliflower, and the uncertainty of the producers' market.

If there is a glut, the bottom falls out of the market; if there is a shortage the consumer cannot get food, and this idiotic marketing system has been allowed to meander on, year after year, because people like Deputy Barry have a sentimental attachment to the out-of-date economic point of view of private enterprise. This continued adhesion to something which has been completely discredited, even in our own country, is much too costly. A number of people have been able to make it operate successfully but it has failed in 99 cases out of 100.

The only tiny sector which was allowed to go into this part of agricultural production, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann—CIE and other such State bodies are merely public utilities— are clearly outstandingly successful in practically every sphere of their activity, and the more one examines their marketing processes, their buying and selling processes generally, the co-ordination between them, the public and the farmers, and the end product, the more one finds how outstandingly superior they are to anything in private enterprise.

There is another factor in connection with public enterprise as distinct from private enterprise and that is that all the money goes back into the enterprise. It ideally should go back to continue to finance it, to continue to finance its expansion and re-equipment or to reduce prices. It is clearly very superior to the idea in private enterprise, where the surplus is distributed among a number of people who do not have to work for it.

Deputy Esmonde and the Minister did mention away back the suggestions that public companies, once they were going concerns, should put their shares on the market and then that most of them should be bought out by wealthy members of the public and that the money thus liberated could be used for other purposes — that public money advanced by the Minister for loans could be liberated for other enterprises. That sounds very attractive and plausible but it leaves aside the argument that one would spend all the public money as very high risk capital in adventures of one kind or another. I do not see why public money should be spent in that way.

If we have put our money into various companies and enterprises, into Aer Lingus or Irish Steel Holdings or Bord na Móna or Forestry, we have done it because we were allowed to do it by private enterprise who saw it was not a profit-making enterprise in the first place, who saw it was a very tough nut to make anything out of, because it was a very difficult administrative or technical job to do. If we put our money into these enterprises and if we make a success of them, we should see that they are retained, so that their benefits may continue to flow to the public in the times of their prosperity, so that as soon as the cream appears on the milk we do not allow it to be skimmed off for stock exchange speculation. The ideal arrangement is that we take these risks with State companies so that when they produce a surplus that surplus will be realised by the public in the form of lower prices and improved social services of one type or another.

Deputy Esmonde also made the point that we had not the money in private enterprise for this type of accelerated deep freeze type machinery that would be required to carry out the process. That is probably typical of what has gone on in the private enterprise food processing industry in Ireland over the years because too much of the money has had to go in dividends. Anybody who reads the annual reports of Crosse and Blackwell, Batchelors and the other firms, who issue their reports every year, will see the colossal amount of money which has to be handed out in the form of profits of one kind or another. The shareholders expect dividends.

Public money is put back into a public concern. Therefore, it is possible for a public company to keep up to date with reorganisation, re-equipment and modernisation of its industry without looking all the time towards the annual general meeting and fearing criticism from shareholders. They are able to reinvest their capital all the time.

I suppose that that probably explains why, over the years, Irish food manufacturing industries, have not made the progress they should have made. CIO reports make it clear that in all the branches of industry they have investigated up to the present there has not been reinvestment in industry. The result is that we are grossly underequipped. In many cases we are equipped with grossly inefficient, out of date equipment of one kind or another.

We have not invested sufficiently in industry in order to create work for people, jobs for people. The result is that we have a whole lot of derelict farms throughout the country which are not producing goods, vegetables, agricultural produce of one kind or another. If the food processing industry were operating at its optimum, these farms would contribute towards creating a demand which probably could not be met, even if every acre were producing to its total capacity.

That is why it is no good to suggest, as Deputy Barry or Deputy Donegan suggest, that these private enterprise firms should be kept as sorts of pets that we should pay for them. They are too costly pets. We cannot afford them.

We are entering a very highly competitive society in which a man shall be judged not on the fact that he is a friend of somebody, that he lives in my constituency, that I knew his father or that his firm is a good old family firm. He will be judged on the quality, price, availability of the product and the certainty with which he can fulfil orders. These are the completely acid tests of success and represent the difference between prosperity and general debts.

In some ways I am opposed, as everybody knows, to the general idea of the Common Market. However, I suppose that in some ways it will be a benefit, in so far as it will bring this moment of truth home to Irish industry. The fact that they have operated in a sheltered atmosphere for the best part of 30 years will make them now most unlikely to be able to face serious competition from outside. To the extent that it will expose that position for the first time, I suppose it is a very desirable thing that it should happen.

I do not understand how the Minister can continue, as he appears to be Continuing, to restrict Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann in the way he does, in the light of his statements on the readiness of our society to enter into the EEC. It is good to know that, even in one tiny sector of our economy, there is prosperity and that we may be able to create at least one competitive industry. It is even more heartening to know that that particular industry happens to be the only industry—outside forestry of fisheries or whatever it might be—based on the natural produce of the countryside and the seas around the land, and that it is the most intelligent industry we could develop in a field, which, regretfully, over the past 40 years we have so much neglected by leaving it to private enterprise.

I very much welcome this Bill. Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann have been giving a wonderful lead to Irish industry over the years as a State-sponsored body. Let us cast our minds back to the war years and to the period just after the war when we had to encourage people to grow sugar by offering half a cwt. of sugar to each person who grew it. The sugar factory in Tuam was just barely able to keep going on the amount of beet it was getting. We have now reached the stage when it is getting more beet than it requires. In such a situation most industries rest on their oars but Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann have never been such a firm. They always have ideas about expanding and going ahead and trying to help the farmer in any way they can.

When they had a surplus of sugar a few years ago Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann realised they required a market for it. At that time, fruit growing was beginning to develop and we had a surplus of it. Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann decided to go into the fruit processing business. It was a help to the farmers. It provided an extra market for their produce. In addition, it helped Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. For each ton of fruit that is preserved, 1¼ tons of sugar are required.

It was that idea of helping themselves and helping the farmers that has made Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann what they are today. Their workers are always happy. You very rarely hear of a trade dispute for the simple reason that the company explain everything to their workers. They show them how they are getting on. They discuss their problems with them. They have the same approach so far as the farmers are concerned. There is the Beet Growers' Association and, as the produce comes in representatives of the farmers are there to see to it that fair play is given to the farmers.

Does the Deputy think it fair under these circumstances to prevent Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann from having access to the home market to the limited extent of 10 per cent., in the light of all he has said?

They have been helping the farmers in every way possible. The beet industry has proved a great industry and a great help to them. When Comhlucht Siúire Éireann were looking for fresh markets this year, they made a new agreement with England in relation to getting more sugar in there. I grant that England has seen the red light, so to speak. England saw that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann were buying unprocessed sugar on the continent of Europe at world prices which I might call dump prices and England thought it would be a good idea to get agreement for the purchase of her Dominion sugar on a long-term basis. Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann are always looking to the future. At the present time, the company is thinking of expanding its machinery in the factory where there is one slight bottleneck that would hold up an increased output of sugar. It hopes to have this in process next year, so that the same amount of time will be devoted to the beet campaign. If more sugar is produced and if there are increased acreages in respect of next year's beet contracts, does that mean the beet campaign will be prolonged? No farmer likes pulling beet in the months of December and January and that would be the outcome of it.

It is a number of years since the company introduced the Armour lifter. It has been developed to such an extent that a company has been set up in England to handle the exports and there is not a beet-lifting competition in England that it is not able to win at the present time. It is able to beat all the foreign beet harvesters and it is this determination to produce the best that has made the sugar company what it is. It is grand to see it is looking for more money to expand because it has certainly shown its worth in what it has done up to the present.

The decision of the company to go into freeze-drying was a very big step. Although we are only starting to see the results of that, it gave the company world-wide publicity. There was not an industrial magazine that did not carry it; even periodicals like Reader's Digest had articles about the freeze-drying outfit that had been installed in Mallow. The company realised it was a good project and has no fears about selling this produce as it comes on the markets of the world. Bringing this extra money into the country is a great benefit. This freeze-drying means that the produce can be put on the pantry shelf and left there for a couple of months and when somebody comes in unexpectedly it can be taken down and consumed after water has been put on it.

It is hard to outline everything this company has been doing over the years. It is looking for perfection. It realises, as all industries here must come to realise, that we must export the best because we are competing in world markets. I saw recently at the company's factory that it was canning vegetables. This is a line which has been showing good results. It has meant increased contracts for the farmers and when their produce is exported it will bring money into the country. Seeing how much good work this company has done over the years, I recommend that it should get the support of the House. If we had many more concerns like this Ireland would be a very wealthy place.

I am afraid Deputy Sweetman started with an anachronism. Whatever the Minister for Health, Deputy MacEntee, may have said in 1932 about white elephants, this company was started in 1933. The first point raised by Deputy Sweetman was that of allowing private investors to put money into this new company. The Bill does not prohibit or exclude that. In fact, in the talks with the board of the sugar company, we both agreed—I think I can say the company agreed—that growers should be encouraged to invest in the new company. It may of course go further than that and if the company advocates that it should get subscriptions from others as well as growers, I cannot see any great objection to it. If it does not suggest it, perhaps we shall have a talk about it and see if something can be done in that way.

Deputy Sweetman also asked what the ADF process is. I do not understand the science of it but I am told there is a difference between it and deep freeze. In deep freeze the article is frozen and kept under frozen conditions. In this case it is first frozen, dried in vacuum and then stored in a dry state; it need not be kept under frozen conditions. It has this great advantage, as I can say having had an opportunity of testing some of the products, that the product preserves its original flavour when it is reconstituted; it goes back to what the fresh fruit or fresh vegetables were like before going through the process.

The Deputy also said he did not like the idea of a subsidiary that would not be under the control of this House. The Deputy is slightly in error there because this subsidiary will be controlled in the same way as the sugar company itself. All finance will have to be provided by law. Whether it collects some of that finance from private sources or from State sources, it has to be authorised by this House; and, secondly, the company will be approved by the Minister for Finance. Therefore, we have practically the same control as we have in the case of the sugar company. The accounts will be submitted to this House.

Under Section 15 of the Principal Act, I understand that, but do I take it the Minister will answer questions about the board and their remuneration, and such matters as he would answer about the parent company?

Yes, I think so.

As long as I have that undertaking from the Minister, I am happy.

Section 4 deals with loans and Section 5 with guarantees. There was some confusion about them. Deputy McQuillan raised the question of the company being prohibited from competing on the home market. This has been a matter of controversy for some time back, although only a few have taken part in the controversy. When the company started out on this food processing it agreed after discussion with the Department of Industry and Commerce, and with my Department to some extent, to confine its home sales to ten per cent. Of the ordinary lines where it is in competition with companies already there. It must be admitted that the State would not put money into a company such as this, if it were merely to compete on the home market where the home market was already fully supplied. It was only on the plea that it was going to build up business for export that the State agreed to put money into it. The new company is, therefore, principally interested in export business and it is only interested in putting its wares on the home market in order to test the market and to give them an opportunity of, perhaps, improving their process in the early stages.

In the case of products that are not manufactured here, of course, they are quite free to put as much as they like on the home market, for instance, their instant potatoes. There is no restriction as far as they are concerned, because no other firm here is producing this commodity.

It is true that the companies they are competing against were small companies, some of them Irish and some of them subsidiaries of foreign companies, but all, as far as the law is concerned, Irish companies and all, as far as I know, formed under the Control of Manufactures Act and I am quite convinced that it is a good thing that we did that, because it at least gives an assurance to any foreigner who may be coming along here now to start company, that if he starts a company here, we will not at some furture time wipe him out with State money.

Of course, if we enter the Common Market, all this thing goes because the foreign produce will be allowed in here and our produce, of course, will be allowed into the Common Market countries and there will be equal conditions for both the sugar company and its subsidiary and for the small companies already in existence.

Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Dr. Browne gave us their views on State enterprise versus private enterprise. I am quite sure they are in favour of State enterprise in principle, not in this case alone, so I will expect in future that we will have their sympathy when we are being attacked for CIE or any of these State-sponsored companies whose affairs come before this Dáil.

I was asked by Deputy Corish what exactly we expected from this new company with regard to the fishing industry. They are not very long in the processing of fish and they have been engaged principally in the processing of shellfish. They have had good success and I am told they are now in the position of putting their product on the market and marketing it in the ordinary commercial way.

Here or abroad?

I think, both—probably both.

Are ADF products available for purchase in shops here?

I will have to change my grocer, so.

It is too soon, however, to give any great forecast about what might happen with regard to fish because they are getting fish only in small quantities, only trying it out. They believe they are successful and are now trying it on the commercial market and we will have to wait and see how things go.

Deputy Corish also asked for what purpose would the sugar company itself want more finance. Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, like other companies, and other producers in this country, are looking forward to what might be regarded as Common Market conditions. They know they will have to compete on an equal footing with sugar producers in the other countries of Europe and, for that reason, they will need to renew a good deal of their equipment over the next few years and to make extensions and they will need money for that purpose.

They are also, as Deputies are aware, producing more sugar now than they did in the past because they have got some small amount of foreign markets for their product and that means more working capital is necessary than they had to provide before. So that there is a necessity for more money for Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. When these Common Market conditions come, there will be a price for beet. Every country will have to pay the same price for beet and then our sugar company here, paying that price for beet to the farmer, will have to compete with the other countries of Europe who are paying the same price for beet in their countries. It will mean, of course, they will have to be efficient and competitive but I have no doubt they will be able to compete in every way.

Deputy Donegan, for instance, said he would like to see a better price for beet. I suppose we all would, but we will have to fall in with whatever price is the fixed price or the agreed price for the countries of the Common Market generally, and will have to be satisfied with that price, whatever it may be.

How does the general European price for sugar compare with ours?

As far as I could study the matter, I do not think there would be much increase in price here.

Is Italian not cheaper?

Italian may be. Take the average. After all, they will come nearer to the top price than the lower price, you see.

We hope.

It is very difficult to tell without bringing into the scales things like pulp, transport, and so on.

All these things enter into it.

It is not merely a flat price.

Personally, I do not think the prices will be very much higher than they are here at the moment.

The market will be bigger.

Deputy Esmonde asked about the amount of capital we are putting in. As I mentioned when moving the Second Reading, we are taking power—this is an enabling Bill —to put in £3 million more as capital, in either the sugar company or the new vegetable company, whatever it may be called. We are taking power to put in £5 million by way of loan as working capital, or by way of guarantee. That is as far as we go at the moment but, as I said this evening at the beginning of the debate, if our hopes for this company materialise, I do not think that provision will last very long—perhaps a couple of years —and then it will come before the Dáil again for attention.

Deputy Leneghan said that we have excellent workers in this country, that our farmers are as good as can be got elsewhere and that our produce is first-class. I agree with all of that, and I agree with him also in his conclusions, that we should have no fear that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, having these conditions at their disposal, will not be able to compete against all comers. I am sure they will.

Deputy Donegan asked what volume will be covered by this new company, what will the farmers' total income be, and a few questions of that kind. I am afraid I cannot answer his questions in full. After all, it must be remembered that that part of the sugar company which is dealing with processing has not been long in operation and is growing fairly rapidly. For that reason, it is difficult to give any sort of forecast as to what the volume of production will be next year or the year afterwards. The present output of fruit and vegetables is about 175 tons a day, which is a fairly substantial quantity after such a short time of operation. Total sales to date exceed £300,000.

They have not, as far as I know, pushed their sales very much because they thought it wiser to have stocks in hand before they pushed sales in any particular market. I mentioned already that there were about 4,500 acres under fruit and vegetables last year for supplying the factory. Another figure which I have is that in the Tuam potato factory, they paid £10 a ton to the farmers but it must be remembered that that £10 a ton was for the whole crop. There was no sorting of potatoes, the whole lot was brought in and all were paid for at that rate. There is no doubt a very big capacity, as I say, for the processing of fruit and vegetables and farmers will be encouraged to grow more and more. They have not got nearly enough potatoes in Tuam—I was down there only about a fortnight ago —and in other processes they have not got enough either so that there is great room for expansion as far as the farmer is concerned.

It might changes the trend of potato growing, which has been downwards for years.

When I heard that they were going to get potatoes in the Tuam factory, I thought they could not have hit on a more suitable crop for Connacht because at least they know how to grow potatoes there. I am sure they would be prepared to grow more. They can take quite a lot in that factory and they will be able to confer benefits on quite a number of farmers in reach of the factory.

Is the Minister suggesting they do not know how to grow anything else in Connacht?

I did not say that at all.

That is exactly what the Minister said.

I said they know how to grow potatoes. If I said that the Deputy knows how to talk about State enterprise, I would not mean that the could not talk about anything else.

The Minister said "at least".

That is right.

That was a left-handed compliment.

Senator Killilea and others near Tuam would not like to hear the Minister say that.

The Deputy is always trying to pick on something like that, to accuse somebody of saying something which was not nice.

It was for the purposes of the record.

He spends his time at that kind of futile job instead of——

The Minister should get the sugar company to use their ADF process on——

If some of the Deputy's talk were canned, it would be all right, where there was no can opener ready.

We get enough bad canning from Telefís Éireann.

Deputy Dr. Browne concluded his speech by referring to the Dublin market. He said that when there were too many vegetables, they got a bad price and so on and he blamed it all on private enterprise. I do not think it is as simple as all that. In Russia, they Killed off half the people on the land to give the remainder a better income but they are not getting a better income and the consumers are paying twice as much under public control as under private enterprise.

Did somebody not accuse the Minister of killing all the calves?

I am sorry if I vexed the Deputy by referring to Russia. I did not mean it altogether for him. We had better get away from that subject, as the Deputy is sensitive about it. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Would the Minister answer one question which I forgot to ask him? It might save me putting down an amendment. Will the subsidiary company be a public company or a private company within the meaning of the Companies Act?

As far as I understand the situation, there is no such thing in law as a subsidiary company.

Will it be a public or a private company?

It will be public, I think.

As long as the Minister gives me that undertaking, that it will be public, I will not put down an amendement.

The sugar company is a public company, is it not?

Then it will be a public company.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 12th December, 1962.
Top
Share