asked the Minister for Agriculture the operating loss incurred for the year ended September 1982 by Tuam sugar factory.
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tuam Sugar Factory.
4.
asked the Minister for Agriculture when a Government decision will be made on the future of Tuam sugar factory.
6.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if the Government have imposed new conditions on Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teorants relating to the Tuam sugar factory vis-à-vis the rationalisation plan sought from them resulting in commercial criteria determining the future of the factory, thereby altering the position as stated in a letter from his Department to the company on 21 July 1982.
7.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that when £30 million of capital injection was advanced to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teoranta in October 1982 the Tuam sugar factory was to be an integral part of the rationalisation plan submitted by the company and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7 inclusive, together.
In October 1982 a sum of £30 million was advanced by the Government to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teoranta subject to conditions to be conveyed to the company later. In February of this year the company were notified of these conditions, which included the provision of a new rationalisation plan based on commercial criteria.
This plan has only just been received and is at present being examined by the Departments concerned. When that examination, which is likely to take some weeks, has been completed, the Government will consider the matter. It is not possible at this stage to say when the Government's decision on the future of the Tuam factory will be made.
In the meantime I do not consider it appropriate to make detailed comments on selected aspects of it relating to the Tuam factory or other company activities. I am, however, advised by the company that the net cost to them of operating the Tuam factory during the year ended September 1982 was approximately £2.5 million.
Is the Minister aware that the operating loss is reported to be in the region of £1.5 million and not £3 million which was announced by the Sugar Company. The figure of £3 million seems to have been accepted by the Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, in a recent article which he wrote for the Irish Independent. That is a very small figure out of the total loss of £22½ million announced by the Sugar Company. Would the Minister not agree that it would be economic lunacy if the Government allow the Tuam factory to close down when the total loss to the Exchequer in PAYE and PRSI payments would be £2.2 million? There are over 1,000 families depending on Tuam sugar factory being maintained.
The figure of £1.4 million which the Deputy mentioned has been quoted by the Tuam action committee but that figure omits other charges such as interest which has been building up as a result of past losses. The overall loss for the year ending September 1982 is calculated at £2.5 million.
(Limerick West): Is the Minister aware that a number of charges which are common to all sugar factories are being levied on the Tuam factory?
No, I am not so aware and I would be interested to receive such information if it exists.
The Minister said that a sum of £30 million was advanced by the Government to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teoranta in October 1982 and he said that special conditions were demanded in February 1983. Could the Minister outline those special conditions?
These conditions were published in the course of a letter from my Department to the Sugar Company. It stated:
... the Government has decided that the Company should (a) proceed with its proposals for the termination now of its canning operations at Mattersons, Limerick, and the termination in September of its industrial food business at Midleton; (b) furnish a report to the Minister for Agriculture by 31 May 1983 on the progress being made to achieve viability and, in the light of that progress, furnish a new rationalisation plan (with appropriate financial quantification) based on commercial criteria, and including such further measures as the board may consider necessary; and (c) furnish a report to the Minister by 1 July 1984 on the prospects for its remaining food operations.
When the £30 million was made available in October 1982, could the Minister tell us if there was any specific directions as to whether a certain amount of that money was to be invested in the Tuam plant? Could he further tell us the breakdown of the operating costs of Tuam factory for 1982?
No, I am sorry, I do not have information on either of those questions.
Are the Minister and the Minister of State in favour of Tuam sugar factory remaining open?
The Government have received a report from the board——
What does the Minister think?
If I were to give my views on everything they might make a best selling novel or a good film. I am not in a position to express an opinion as I have not studied the report in detail. I will study it closely in the coming weeks as I only received it last Monday. It will be some weeks before a full study is made by my Department and the Department of Finance. As a result of those studies, we will be bringing the matter to the Cabinet for a decision.
Having put down four questions, I have got very little information from the Minister. In relation to the £30 million which he knows was advanced on the condition that Tuam was to be an integral part of the Sugar Company operations, can he tell me if even one penny was spent on Tuam Sugar Factory?
I am not aware of how the money was spent but I know it covered moneys which were spent in recent years in modernising plant in the Sugar Company. I do not know how much was spent in each factory; that information was not sought in the question.
(Limerick West): Would the Minister indicate the reason for the change in the recommendation by his Department to the Irish Sugar Company from that of the previous year when it was stated that Tuam would be an integral part of the company rather than being taken in isolation?
I am not familiar with the exact terms of the original recommendation——
(Limerick West): Is the Minister familiar with anything?
——but the Government are reviewing the operation of State-sponsored bodies.
(Limerick West): The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information.
On questions that have been put down.
The information sought by the Deputy has nothing to do with the original question.
The Minister said that interest charges were included in the £2.5 million. This is not true as I am informed——
Ask a question, Deputy.
Is the Minister aware that that is not true? The workers' action committee have stated to me that interest charges are included in the operating loss. When the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Lenihan, introduced the Sugar Manufacture (Amendment) Bill, 1982, he stated that in deciding the Tuam factory should remain open the Government were affording an opportunity to all concerned to ensure that the necessary efforts were made to guarantee its future. That effort has been made, the acreage of beet has doubled——
If the Deputy wants to make a speech he will have to find another opportunity of doing so.
Will the Minister give a commitment to the further development of Tuam?
The whole matter is under review. As I said, we have only just received the report from the Sugar Company and we will be making decisions on that report when we have studied it in detail.
I have allowed eight supplementary questions on this subject.
(Interruptions.)
It is the Chair's duty to preserve order at Question Time.
(Limerick West): It is the duty of the members to elicit information from the Minister which they are not getting. The Chair is denying them that opportunity.
The Deputy will have to find another way of doing it. Uimhir 8 in the name of Deputy Wilson.
That is not my question.
I am sorry, it is in the name of Deputy Kitt.
Could I raise the matter on the Adjournment?
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I was waiting for somebody to ask me for Deputy Hugh Byrne's views.
(Limerick West): Would the Chair ask the Minister for Agriculture to withdraw that remark?
I did not hear what the Minister said. What did the Minister say?
I was hoping that somebody would ask me for Deputy Hugh Byrne's view on that.
I do not see anything wrong with that remark.
(Limerick West): Well, the Chair does not. That is his decision.
Deputy Noonan, I rule out only things which are not parliamentary. A certain amount of political abuse is tolerated. The Deputy should not——
(Limerick West): May I also bring to the Chair's attention——
The Deputy will remain seated while the Chair is standing. Deputy Noonan will withdraw the suggestion that the Chair has been selective. I cannot tolerate that and will not tolerate it.
(Limerick West): If the Chair feels that my remark suggests that the Chair is selective in its decisions, I will withdraw it. I want to point out, however, that in yesterday's debate the Chair made this House look very ridiculous because be referred to the Members as a kindergarten school. I would ask the Chair to withdraw that remark.
I will leave it to an impartial tribunal to find the verdict.
The Chair is right. The Opposition Deputies are like children.
(Interruptions.)
In view of his reply, could I ask the Minister——
Deputy Fahey cannot ask the Minister anything at this stage. I have called Question No. 8. Deputy Fahey should please resume his seat.
I am sorry not to have got that opportunity.