The Minister says the new capital to the company will be subject to certain conditions. The Minister's earlier statement shows that he appreciates the position as did the joint committee in their report. What if any conditions is he referring to?
Sugar Manufacture (Amendment) Bill, 1982: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The point that concerns us at this stage is in regard to the conditions. We do not know at this stage what the recommendations of the consultants were. There may be some conditions that would be unacceptable to us on this side of the House.
We are satisfied within the Department that the rationalisation programme is acceptable. As the Deputy knows, that rationalisation programme has already started and it continues and this is where we have made a commitment for this year of £30 million.
Rationalisation can be very irrational at times. This is why I am concerned. We are concerned at the mystery which surrounds the future nationalisation programme of the group. We hear far too much nowadays about chopping off and paring down and so on. It is a negative approach to industries. We have the same situation in NET where there is even talk about a cutback on security. So in the absence of some sort of clear statement that, say, on the food side we will be forging ahead with all systems going, I would be very unhappy to agree in the dark to this.
I cannot understand Deputy Hegarty's concern because we are providing the capital necessary for the company and it is up to the company to submit their plans for a rationalisation programme to the Government.
At that stage will we have an opportunity to discuss these plans in this House or will we be left in the dark because we have not the benefit of access to the consultant's report? I am very fearful about what this type of mechanically minded operation will finally come out with. They are not concerned about people and families. It is more a ruthless balancing of budgets. In the teeth of a depression it is totally wrong not to be concerned about people. The whole face of Erin Foods and the Sugar Company could change overnight with improvement in the economy and increased consumer demand. I hope, before we leave this section, that we will get a commitment from the Minister that there will be no further curtailments in this very valuable industry.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the capital of the company from £10 to £75 million and that is what we are doing in sections 2 and 3. Under section 3 the Minister is enabled to acquire all the capital of the company if he thinks it is desirable and that is where the cost to the State arises. Presumably plans have been submitted to the Minister by the company and he is satisfied about the justification for authorising an increase in the capital of the company and also satisfied that he would be justified in acquiring all the shares of the company. Perhaps the Minister would give us a rough idea of the proposals the company have put before him and how it is proposed to use this huge increase in capital. I realise that it may not be the intention of the company to use all the capital at the same time or to call on the Minister to put up the money, but the House should have a general idea of what is behind the proposal, the plans the Minister has received, the reports he has obtained on the state of the machinery in each of the company's factories, whether it needs to be replaced and, if so, how much money would be involved. At first sight an increase from £10 to £75 million is huge but the cost of replacing the very elaborate machinery used in undertakings such as sugar processing is very high.
Without coming back to the House, the Minister can acquire all the capital of the company at a cost of £65 million and this is the only time Members will have an opportunity to find out what proposals have been made to the Minister. I am sure there have been protracted negotiations between the Department and the company. Deputy Hegarty is satisfied with the Bill and welcomes it but I feel the House should not be asked to vote in blinkers for this measure.
The increase from £10 million to £75 million looks huge to the layman but it seems that this is necessary. The Department hardly agreed on this sum without receiving plans and proposals from the Sugar Company. We all agree that our industries must be competitive if we are to survive and we need the most up-to-date machinery and technical expertise. If machinery is allowed to run down over a long period it may cost ten times as much to replace. The Minister might tell us what proposals he has received.
While it is understandable and desirable that some information should be made available, I do not think we should expect the Minister of State to give details. Section 2 seems to provide for circumstances under which it is possible for the company to utilise amounts up to £75 million.
(Cavan-Monaghan): With respect, section 3 must be borne in mind when dealing with section 2.
If the Chair is tolerant of that, it is hoped that we would be able to dispense with section 3 without any debate on it.
That is agreed. People at all levels of this industry are concerned and we hope we have seen the end of various problems and closures. The company have always shown great enthusiasm and now that they have funding they should be free to forge ahead unhampered by any restrictions or directives from the Government. If some measures are found to be necessary, we should at least have the opportunity to discuss them in this House.
I can understand the desire to get this Bill passed.
It will be passed within ten minutes or less.
I wish to allay any fears Deputy Hegarty may have. This Government are committed to the beet and vegetable industries. Modernisation plans for the Sugar Company are already in train, but on borrowed money.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I appreciate that the Minister of State and the Government are satisfied that what they are doing is right but we are engaged in the democratic process and it is not unreasonable to approach section 2 as I have done. If we were to carry on the business of this House as the Minister of State seems to think we should, there would be no necessity for the Dáil because the Minister could simply say he was satisfied with what he was doing. I am asking him to give us a broad outline of the proposals of the Sugar Company for using this £65 million.
I spelled that out in my speech but the Deputy was not here.
(Cavan-Monaghan): There is no use in the Minister's becoming pig-headed or losing his temper. I would ask him to give the House the information to which it is entitled regarding the proposals which have been put before him by the Sugar Company.
Deputy Fitzpatrick will appreciate that if the Minister of State indicates that he has already given the information to the House, it would be contrary to Standing Orders that he be asked to repeat the same information.
We have not got this information.
I thought the Minister of State had indicated that he had already given this information.
I gather from what the Minister has said in the last few minutes that we can be assured of no curtailment in the food side of the industry. If that be so we would be quite happy. The Minister has given a very positive commitment with regard to the sugar beet side of the industry and if we were to get an equally positive commitment on the expansion of the food industry, that that industry would be forging ahead rather than retracting, we would be quite satisfied.
I am satisfied on that aspect. Deputy Hegarty mentioned the amount of imported vegetables, which is a public disgrace.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
There is a future for vegetable growing in this country, properly organised vegetable growing which would go some way towards solving our balance of payments problems.
Hear, hear.
I am a great believer in producing whatever we can here for our own benefit and the benefit of the country at large, whether the Sugar Company or some other group carry on this business. I spelled out in my speech, in no uncertain manner, that the profits being made from the sugar side of the company's business went to offset the losses in the vegetable end for years. The Deputy well knows that. If Deputy Hegarty is not aware of the present situation, the Sugar Company are at present carrying out modernisation of their plants. Deputy Fitzpatrick, who, unfortunately, was not here for my speech would not have had to ask his questions on Committee Stage if he had been here on Second Stage. He comes in to interrupt the business of this House on Committee Stage of a Bill when he was not in for the conclusion of Second Stage.
There is nothing in Standing Orders which insists on a Member being present on Second Stage.
It is unfair for the Deputy who was not here to come in on Committee Stage asking for this information.
It happens regularly.
If the Deputy was not there for my speech——
I am sorry, Minister of State. While one could argue that point, one has to appreciate that that would be relevant on Second Stage. However, we have now moved to Committee Stage, which need not have taken place until next week, at which stage it would be in order for any Deputy who had been absent to question any Minister of State in any fashion which he thought proper. The fact that it happened a short while ago would not necessarily mean that it would exclude Deputy Fitzpatrick, or any other Deputy, from joining in on the debate on Committee Stage.
Just to put it on record, I am awaiting a detailed and concrete programme from the company as regards where they are going and where the rest of this money is to be spent. I have not that information now.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is fair enough.
I hope that that is the answer that is required. Whether I would even be at liberty to spell out that programme in this House I do not know, either. That is the situation. I am happy that, at least, we are putting our money where our mouth is in so far as the Sugar Company are concerned. We have total confidence in that company and in the future of the beet industry.
Could I get a yes or no answer to the following question? Would the Minister be favourably disposed towards the Erin Food Group, if they were appointed to initiate a fresh vegetable packing and marketing business, if such proposals should materialise through farming organisations or workers?
We would certainly look at those proposals favourably.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is regretted that the Minister of State has approached the Committee Stage of this Bill in such a nasty and unpleasant manner. I am entitled, as a Member of this House, to come in on Committee Stage, if I was engaged elsewhere during Second Stage, and to ask relevant questions. The Minister may have shortcomings, I do not know, but he undoubtedly possesses a certain amount of cunning. He grasped at the straw of refusing to answer my question and giving as his explanation that if I had been here when he was delivering his speech on Second Stage I would have got all the required information. I have read his speech on Second Stage and the information which I have requested is not in it. I asked for a general——
May I ask has there been time allowed for the conclusion of this Bill, or what is the position?
The Chair will proceed through all the Stages of this legislation and, apart from any understanding or agreement which exists, of which the Chair is not necessarily aware, there is no limit to any contribution which is being made, provided it is in accordance with the Standing Orders which govern the debate.
Is there a time limit on the debate on this Bill this evening?
No, Deputy.
So that it will be concluded?
I understand that that hope has been expressed. I understand, too, that parties have indicated agreement to concluding it, but the Chair is not a party to those agreements.
(Cavan-Monaghan): As I was saying, I have read through this speech which the Minister circulated and cannot find the information which I asked for, which was a general idea of the proposals put to the Minister, or his Department, by the company, which justifies the passing by this House of an amendment of the capital limit of the company, thereby giving authority to the Minister to acquire £75 million worth of capital and put £75 million worth of money into this company. When I asked the Minister for that information in the early stages, he referred me to this speech in an insulting manner and said that if I was here when he was delivering his speech I would not have had to ask that question because the information I sought was contained in it. When he consulted his advisers he discovered for the first time that he did not have the information although he tried to be smart and tell me that if I had listened to his speech I would have got the information. He stood up a second time and said he did not have the information and that, if he did have it, he did not think he would be at liberty to give it.
It gives me no pleasure to say that but I will not take ignorant lectures from the Minister of State or anyone else when I come in here to perform my duty. In the interests of employment and of keeping the sugar factory going, we will not obstruct the passage of this Bill. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that we are being asked to pass a Bill in which under sections 2 and 3, if taken together, we are authorising the Minister to invest either £65 million or £75 million in the Sugar Company and yet we cannot get elementary information from the Minister of State, who came in here on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture who is God knows where, to put this measure through.
This is not good enough. If the Minister does not have the information, he should get it. If he does not have the information, he should not try to bluff his way through the House by an ignorant and uncalled for attack on me. He is sitting there now. He has not got the information yet. It is a public disgrace to conduct the business of the House as the Minister is doing. Not only has he not got the information but he has not the common courtesy or decency to explain why he has not got it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.