Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Dec 1968

Vol. 237 No. 10

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Trading Policy of Company.

15.

asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that notwithstanding his undertaking in reply to supplementary questions on 13th November a firm (name and address supplied) and its State-sponsored holding company are in direct competition with existing traders and have held meetings of customers all over the country to offer them their wares; and if he will take steps to ensure that such competition will not be continued.

As I have stated in my reply to the question on 13th November, the firm in question will continue to trade as a separate company offering the same range of services as it has offered in the past. Trading will continue through the established channels and groups of merchants who are established customers have already been assured by the firm that there will be no change in its distribution arrangements. The intervention of the holding company was to ensure the continuation of the availability in this country, in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices, of certain chemical sprays of importance to the beet industry. It was never intended that the firm should cease its normal commercial trading solely because it became a subsidiary of a State-sponsored company. There is no intention that it will engage in any unfair competition throughout the country and, consequently, I see no justification for limiting its commercial freedom.

Does the Taoiseach not agree that on 13th November he assured me in his reply that this firm would not compete with existing firms and that the take-over by the operating company was merely to guarantee the provision of certain chemicals for beet growers? The Taoiseach's reply today is in exact contradiction to that of the 13th November.

I told the Deputy the company would continue the kind of operations they had engaged in and, when he spoke about competition, I answered his question in the context of this new company being a subsidiary of a State company which would not have any commercial advantage over a private company but must continue its present range of operation. In fact, beet-growing farmers are always asking the Sugar Company to expand its range of services on these lines.

If the Taoiseach reads his reply of 13th November he will clearly see that he assured me there would be no competition.

But that would mean they would have to withdraw from business.

The Taoiseach assured me further that the purpose of the exercise was to provide certain chemicals for beet growers, which was pure cod because anyone with a pound note could buy them.

My information is that those engaged in this operation would not produce, nor were they interested in, the kind of chemicals needed by the beet growers as supplied by this company.

That is a complete contradiction of what the Taoiseach told me on the 13th November.

Top
Share