I raise this matter not in any spirit of acrimony or criticism of the Taoiseach or, indeed, of criticism at all, but because a very important principle is at stake. The question is whether or not State-sponsored companies will be allowed to compete with ordinary trading interests, interests which have to pay rents, rates and taxes and carry all their own costs whereas, in this particular case, in which a very large one, the question of costs is something that can be completely disregarded.
I happen to know every member of the staff of this particular company and I am glad to learn from the Taoiseach that all the staff have been assimilated by the Sugar Company and their jobs are secure. I am not raising this matter merely to chase some hare. I raise it because it is a matter of grave public interest. In my opinion, it is vitally important that we should come down on either one side of the fence or the other. Is it the intention now that State-sponsored companies will enter into competition with ordinary citizens and trading interests, or is it not? There is, too, the fact that there seems to be a contradiction in the two statements made to Deputy Clinton and myself when we asked supplementary questions and the answer given to me yesterday. If it is a case of the Taoiseach not being completely briefed on the first occasion, then I have no criticism to offer, but it is important that the matter should be clarified and that we should know once and for all whether or not State-sponsored companies are going to indulge in this sort of trading.
The background is important. Interchem was an agent here for Fisons which distribute a large range of agricultural and horticultural chemicals. They did it, having moved from one agency here, through a company called Interchem which, I think, they themselves floated. The position was that the particular products were available here and were in competition with the products of other companies selling a similar range of products under different brand names. Apparently, Interchem was going to fold up and the Sugar Company took it over on the basis that there was a certain chemical—I do not want to advertise any brand name—necessary for use on the beet crop. The reason given by the Taoiseach was that it was to ensure supplies of this particular chemical that the company was taken over. It is important at this stage that I should advert to the fact that if the costs of this company were taken in relation, for instance, to the amount of money that would be brought in by one-eighth of a penny per lb of sugar you could produce a colossal profit in this company when, in fact, all that would be happening would be that the citizens would be paying fractionally more for the product they use in their daily lives.
That brings me now to volume 237 of the Official Report, column 172, of Wednesday, 13th November, 1968. Deputy Clinton asked the Minister for Finance if he would give details of the takeover by the Irish Sugar Company of Interchem and the Taoiseach replied:
Interchem Ltd. is an Irish company engaged in the distribution of agro-chemicals some of which are considered by the Irish Sugar Company to be of importance to the beet industry. The company was about to cease trading and the Irish Sugar Company was anxious to ensure that the products in which it was interested would continue to be available to beet growers. Accordingly, the Irish Sugar Company acquired the share capital of Interchem Ltd., which will continue to trade as a separate company offering the same range of services as it has offered in the past. The existing staff of Interchem Ltd. have not been disturbed in their employment.
I then asked a supplementary question:
Mr. Donegan: Does the Taoiseach not know that the product, which he state was a worry in relation to its being available to the Irish farmer for the production of beet, its being available anyway in Britain for which Interchem is an agent? The answer the Taoiseach gave is quite incorrect. This is a case where a semi-State company has entered into competition with other companies in this country.
There were other supplementaries, including one by Deputy Dillon as to what the consideration was for the purchase of the shareholding of the company, but it is the Taoiseach's last replies which are the salient ones:
The Taoiseach: the only intention is to secure delivery for the purpose for which it was used hitherto; that is, beet growing. There is no competition with other Irish chemical companies.
Mr. Donegan: We take it they will not indulge in competition with other companies.
The Taoiseach: If they do they will not be permitted.
That, as far as I was concerned, settled the matter. I then discovered that in the Carlow-Kilkenny area meetings were being held by various people in the agro-chemical trade at which a complete range of products offered by the present company were being offered wholesale through Interchem Ltd. In other wards, a State-sponsored company had gone into direct competition selling similar types of goods. Now that is an extremely bad principle. It is one on which we must now be guided by the Taoiseach. In passing, I should like to point out that not only did this occur but the Irish Sugar Company has now gone into competition with compound millers and is offering compound feeds for sale direct to farmers. May I once more point out that one-eighth of a penny on the lb of sugar would again change the price at which these products are sold by, perhaps, £2, £3, £4, or £5 a ton? In my view, that is improper and unfair competition. It is competition to which a complete stop should be put in the very near future.
The question I asked the Taoiseach yesterday is of interest. I asked the Taoiseach:
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.
The reply given by the Taoiseach is as follows:
As I 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 case 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 not justification for limiting its commercial freedom.
That is in absolute contradiction to what was said on 13th November. Now certain supplementaries were asked and I want to make it clear here that I am quoting now from the carbon copy, which I obtained from the editorial section, and, if there are any corrections to be made, it is only fair to the Taoiseach that I should point out the source from which I am quoting:
Mr. Donegan: Does the Taoiseach not agree that on 13th November he assured me in his reply on that date 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 the beet-growers? The Taoiseach's reply today is in exact contradiction to that of the 13th.
The Taoiseach: 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 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 their range of services on these lines.
Mr. Donegan: If the Taoiseach reads his reply of 13th November he will clearly see that he assured me there would be no competition.
The Taoiseach: But that would mean they would have to withdraw from business.
Mr. Donegan: 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 it.
The Taoiseach: 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 and supplied by this company.
Mr. Donegan: That is a complete contradiction of what the Taoiseach told me on the 13th.
I hold that is a complete contradition. I hold that this is a further intrusion on the rights of private enterprise, private business. I hold that when a person pays rent, rates and taxes, pays properly negotiated trade union wages, and behaves properly in every sense in his business capacity, he should not be interrupted or competed with by any State sponsored company, because when we come to the question of State sponsored bodies, the ESB or another body, their accounts are very often a matter of opinion. For instance, if Interchem Ltd. are given offices in the Sugar Company Buildings, what will be the charge for those offices? If there is an accountancy fee at the end of the year, what will the charge be? How do you break down all the costs? If the company have cars and if the Sugar Company have garages and those cars are kept in those garages, what will the charge be? Are we sure there will be an exact break down of the costs that should be levied against the gross profits of the company when they produce their net profits?
I want to suggest that it is quite incorrect and improper that we should have competition from a State sponsored company with private traders. This should cease. I want to say again that I know personally all the people in Interchem. I am delighted that their jobs were preserved. I know the Taoiseach's word is good enough on that. Their jobs will be preserved. I hold that either the Taoiseach was not properly briefed on 13th November, or something slipped. Whatever happened—and I think the House will agree with me if they read the references I have given—I got an absolute guarantee on 13th November that there would be no competition with existing companies operating in this field, and it now appears that there will be.
