Deputy Michael Lowry gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the matter of Thurles Sugar Factory and its future.
Adjournment Debate. - Thurles Sugar Factory.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to put my views before the House on the proposed closure of Thurles Sugar Factory. I am sure that as a Tipperary man you also are very concerned about recent developments. I thank the Minister for being present. It is important that he should be in the House since he has a key role to play in the successful outcome of this matter.
The decision to axe Thurles Sugar Factory will deal a shattering blow to thousands of people in Thurles, Tipperary, and throughout Munster. It will devastate the local economy which has already suffered dramatically during the past six months with the closure of St. Mary's District Hospital in Thurles, the part-closure of the Hospital of the Assumption and the axing of the only ray of hope we had, the establishment of a regional technical college which would lead to educational and industrial development. Yesterday's unanimous decision by the board of the Sugar Company has cast widespread doom and gloom. The workforce and the community in general are totally dejected and demoralised.
The concept of the Irish Sugar Company and the Thurles factory was the brainchild of a Tipperary man, M. J. Costello and it is ironic and sad that another Tipperary man should preside over the closure of this factory. As a State enterprise the Sugar Company was established to provide an additional source of revenue for Irish farmers, to improve the national balance of payments and to provide a vital base of rural employment. Unfortunately the present Minister for Agriculture and Food is allowing these noble principles to be trampled upon and set aside.
There is widespread fear and concern in Thurles at the prospect of 350 permanent and part time jobs being put in jeopardy and the consequent loss of a wage bill approaching £9 million per annum to the local business people. The decision to close the Thurles factory is impossible to understand as the plant over the years has been a profit-making enterprise. The beet harvesting campaign at present being conducted is one of the most successful for many years. The factory has proved its efficiency and cost effectiveness through the years. It is a viable unit and would continue to be so if allowed to stay in existence.
One of the principal reasons for the shock and dismay is that no one expected this type of decision in view of the categorical assurances given last February prior to the election by Deputy Michael O'Kennedy, the present Minister for Agriculture and Food, on behalf of Fianna Fáil. It was stated that Thurles Sugar Factory would expand and develop under a Fianna Fáil Government. The Minister and his ministerial colleague from North Tipperary, Deputy Michael Smith, attracted considerable additional support on foot of those gilt-edged promises. They now have a moral duty and responsibility to live up to those commitments. The Minister's continued weakness in negotiations in Brussels has led to his failure to secure an increased sugar beet quota which would copperfasten the future of the Thurles factory. I do not say lightly that he has betrayed those who voted for him on foot of his empty promises by allowing the board of the Sugar Company to recommend closure.
I read with amusement in the Irish Independent the Minister's statement at an agricultural conference last Sunday that he gave no assurance the Thurles factory would be kept open. Having made that statement among a gathering of Fianna Fáil people, the Minister probably did not expect it to get back to the constituency, but there are many irate people in the factory who know the facts and are very disappointed that the Minister should disown his previous comments and commitments.
It is important that those commitments should be underlined. In a document circulated to all workers in the factory and their families the Minister committed Fianna Fáil in Government to establishing an enterprise centre to develop new by-products. Nothing has been heard about it since. Contrary to his promise to retain a 2,500 tonne defuser in the Thurles factory, this plant was transferred long ago to Mallow. He also failed to deliver on a promise to retain sugar packaging facilities at Thurles. The machinery was designated for Mallow a considerable time ago and all future packaging is to be shared between Carlow and Mallow. Those decisions were taken long before yesterday's decision.
The Minister also made a commitment that natural gas would come on stream in Thurles. This is included in the famous document I have here. The promised natural gas was supposed to reduce manufacturing costs at the Thurles plant and make it more viable. We have heard nothing of that either.
The Minister gave a guarantee that job opportunities would be increased at the Thurles Sugar Factory but the very opposite has happened. Between May and July this year 27 permanent employees have lost jobs through disemployment——
Could I ask the Deputy to read the commitment I am said to have given to introduce natural gas to Thurles?
It is part of the document.
Will the Deputy indicate where I said I would do that?
When I am concluding I will respond to the Minister's request and read the document for him.
Will the Deputy have the document in front of him?
The Deputy should give the appropriate reference, if he can do so. It is usual to give the reference when quoting such material.
I intend to do that when I have it in my possession. The Minister has failed to exercise his authority to correct the imbalance in the allocation of capital expenditure. Prior to the election the document I referred to, with the Minister's name to it, made an astonishing commitment to sack all board members on Fianna Fáil's return to power.
Will the Deputy read the reference to that to me?
I will do that when I am concluding and when the document is before me.
I challenge the Deputy to read that statement into the record, if he has the document in front of him.
As soon as the document comes to hand I will read it into the record. I have asked a colleague to get it for me.
On a point of order, the Deputy is making statements allegedly coming from a document that I published and I insist that the Deputy read the document because I did not make any such statement. The Deputy should withdraw his allegation.
I intend to quote from the document as soon as it comes to hand.
It is clear that if the Deputy purports to be quoting from a document he should give the appropriate reference in respect of that document.
I have specified the document concerned.
If the document is not before the Deputy he ought not to purport to quote from it.
The document I have referred to was widely distributed prior to the election in February.
Is the Minister denying the existence of that document?
I am denying what Deputy Lowry has said.
Is the Minister denying he made a commitment?
I am asking Deputy Lowry to put the record straight on this issue.
Is the Minister denying he made another one of those commitments?
We have had an orderly debate up to this point.
On a point of order——
Deputy Mitchell has just entered the Chamber and is now a source of disorder. The Chair will not allow that. Deputy Lowry is purporting to quote from a document and I am asking him to give the reference. He has indicated he is awaiting the appropriate document but in the meantime I should like to ask him not to quote any further.
I should like to point out to the Chair that I entered the Chamber after I heard Deputy O'Kennedy on my intercom being allowed to interrupt Deputy Lowry in the course of his speech and being allowed to do so by the Chair. That was not fair to Deputy Lowry.
The Chair allowed Deputy Lowry to raise this matter on the Adjournment and to do so in an orderly fashion. That Deputy purported to quote from a document and the Chair asked him to give the reference, as is usual procedure. I resent the intrusion of Deputy Mitchell in this matter.
On a point of order——
The Deputy should resume his seat. The Deputy is raising spurious points of order at this stage.
On a point of order, I must point out that the Minister has admitted that he made this commitment——
I am sorry, but if I thought this was likely to happen I would have had second thoughts about this whole matter.
I have been asked by the Minister to refer to the document.
The Chair also asked the Deputy for the reference.
I ask the Deputy to quote where I said I would sack the board.
May I be permitted to continue without interruption from the Minister?
And with the protection of the Chair.
I do not think I should have to put the document on the record of the House because the Minister, the people of Thurles and the people of North Tipperary are well aware of the document I am referring to. That document, dated 9 February 1987 is in the name of Michael O'Kennedy T.D., Gortlandroe, Nenagh, County Tipperary. I should like to quote from it because such unsustainable promises undermine the credibility of all politicians and our political system. That document states:
The Fianna Fáil Programme for National Recovery places special emphasis on the agri-food industry. It commits itself to “the development of new by-products in agriculture and the strengthening of each semi-State enterprise to achieve maximum employment and added value in this sector”.
Thurles Sugar factory is just such an enterprise where we will develop new by-products ...
Where Government talk of closing Thurles, Fianna Fáil plan for development. The Coalition Government and the present board of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann talk of closing down the Thurles sugar factory. YOU CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE WILL CHANGE THE BOARD.
That is in black and white in the Minister's document.
The Minister should admit it; resign.
I did not say I would sack the board.
The document went on:
In the meantime, we will insist that the present board review their so-called "two factory plan". The decision to transfer the 2,500 tonne diffuser from Tuam to Mallow will be reviewed. The transfer of sugar packaging from Thurles to Carlow will be reviewed.
Small is beautiful, as France the world leader in sugar beet production, has proved in that no less than 12 of their factories are smaller than Thurles.
Thurles can be competitive like Carlow, with cheap natural gas like Carlow, with sufficient plant and equipment like Carlow ...
That is not what the Deputy alleged I said.
I ask the Chair to allow me continue without interruption.
The Deputy should be allowed continue without interruption as his time is limited.
The document continued:
The EC have now offered sugar (with a huge rebate to processors) as a feed stock for the chemical industry. Why have the present board of the sugar company rejected this prospect? People count as much in Thurles as in Merrion Square. We will not accept executive luxury at the cost of worker misery. There is a huge sweetener market in Ireland, as there is in Europe. There is a major feed stock market for the chemical industry. There is a better way. Fianna Fáil brought the sugar factory to Thurles and Fianna Fáil will keep it there.
The Minister should have heard enough from that document to accept that there was validity in my earlier comments. I was not casting any unfair aspersions on him. The document speaks for itself and I am glad the Minister has given me an opportunity to read it into the record.
In the election campaign a DJ who was housed in a caravan in Liberty Square continuously played a tape of Michael O'Kennedy and Michael Smith wooing the voters in that constituency with promises of a better way ensuring a brighter future and the promises included the expansion and development of Thurles. In this case they hijacked the voters, based on a message of economic resurgence, renewal and expansion. Since the election there has been an air of expectation in Thurles with the people anticipating that the factory will be maintained and developed. However, they have been let down with a bang.
In view of statements circulating in Thurles since this decision was made I should like to make a number of comments. No matter how Fianna Fáil try to camouflage the decision, or refer to the statement that was made, the fact is that the board of the sugar company have taken a decision to close Thurles sugar factory. That was the decision no matter how one plays around with words. That decision was unanimous and any reference to the composition of the board is irrelevant now. We have people in my area, on behalf of the Minister and Fianna Fáil, calling on Michael Lowry to save the sugar factory but the reality is that the two Ministers from North Tipperary can take an initiative on this and have the closure of Thurles deferred. They should fulfil their commitment for the expansion and development of the factory.
I should like to refute the comments made that the five year plan was in existence prior to the election. That plan came into being on 1 May 1987 and that occurred during the term of office of the Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy. Some people on behalf of Fianna Fáil, have stated that the factory is not going to close but everybody in the industry knows that the problem in Thurles this year is that included in the five year plan is a proposal that all capital investments and expenditure will be devoted to the factories in Carlow and Mallow. Millions of pounds will be spent on improvement works, equipment and so on in those factories but a paltry £40,000 has been earmarked for the Thurles factory.
I should like to ask the Minister, who may say that the factory is not going to close, to say how that statement is compatible with the fact that it is being closed by stealth, is being strangled to death slowly, but surely due to a lack of investment. The capital investment programme in the five year plan leaves out Thurles for the full five years. In effect, the factory is closing anyway. I call on the Minister to exercise his ministerial authority and control and request him to go to Government and ensure that the board of the Sugar Company are instructed immediately to rescind this decision.
I am glad I was able to get back a short time ago from my talks in Brussels to respond to this question, and particularly to correct some of the distortions which were presented to the House by Deputy Lowry. Deputy Lowry has taken it on himself to represent the unanimous view of the board yesterday as a decision to axe the Thurles sugar factory. He presents it that way. He also demanded that I not allow these noble principles to be repudiated and put aside. He is effectively requesting and demanding of me that I directly interfere with the activities and decisions of the board of the Sugar Company.
The Minister promised them——
Deputies please. The Minister has but ten minutes to reply. Let us hear him.
He promised —
Does Deputy Mitchell not want to hear the facts? For the record, I want to refer to the points Deputy Lowry alleged when I asked for clarification. He said I undertook to introduce natural gas to Thurles. I am saying categorically that I gave no such undertaking and the document he read does not give that undertaking. He said I said I would sack the board. I am saying categorically that I made no such statement. What I said was —
It is quoted here —
——"You change the Government, and we will change the board."
What is the difference ?
I did not say I would sack the board.
On a point of order—
Deputy Durkan, please resume your seat.
The Minister demanded——
I will adjourn this debate forthwith if you insist on interrupting. I appeal to the Deputies' sense of fair play to allow the Minister to reply without interruption.
The Minister interrupted several times and you allowed him to do so.
The Chair did his best, but I might have had second thoughts if I had realised Deputies were going to behave like this.
We are here to protect the people——
The Deputies know they have no answer and so they are behaving disgracefully. May I please answer? I have only ten minutes to deal with this matter. I have been up all night and I did not have much time to deal with this. The Deputies know, and I will circulate it for the information of the House, the constitution of the board. What I indicated was that we would change the board in time. When the occasion arose——
On a point of order——
When the first two vacancies occurred in the normal course I nominated two other members. I am not saying I am changing every member but the fact is I cannot consider the other appointments until their period of office ends. Each member of the board was appointed in 1985, five of the members were appointed by the outgoing Minister as were the two I replaced. I will act in accordance with my statutory role and function. I would never contemplate sacking a board but I will, if necessary, change the composition of the board. The men I have appointed have proved their worth.
On a point of order, the Minister is giving a misleading impression.
The Deputy is trying to destort what I said. What the board decided yesterday is not what Deputy Lowry said. I will quote from that statement:
In view of the publicity surrounding the sugar factory operations at Thurles, the Board wishes to state that it is concerned about the future viability of sugar processing in Thurles in the long-term. In the light of the consequential threat to employment caused by the potential non-viability of the plant, the Board has decided to secure an alternative industry for Thurles. When this industry is identified the Board will then decide on the future of the Thurles factory.
End of decision. Deputy Lowry interprets that as a decision of the board to axe Thurles. He wants to give the impression, for his own ends, that I was sacking the board despite the fact that the members were appointed by the previous Minister, Deputy Deasy. Deputy Lowry wants to convey the impression to gloom and apprehension in Thurles but he will not succeed because I am glad to say the board, in their unanimous decision yesterday, took particular account of the employment priorities and the operations of the Sugar Company in Thurles.
I want to state for the record that the plans Deputy Lowry says came into existence in my time——
May 1987.
How can we believe anything the Minister says?
It was not. The board of Siúicre Éireann were required and obliged by a decision of the previous Government to present a five year ongoing plan. This plan was in existence——
It was not.
On a point of order—
Yesterday's board decision was not to adopt the draft plan Deputy Lowry was talking about. It was an amended decision which was passed unanimously by the board.
The Minister is wriggling out of his promises.
I am not. I am stating facts, that the board yesterday adopted an amended decision after detailed consultations——
Which means?
——it was not the plan the Deputy is alleging ——
What does the decision mean for Thurles?
We have made a central plank of our determination to maximise employment as part of the Programme for National Recovery. I am happy to say that my commitment as Minister for Agriculture and Food and as a member of the Government is to promote in terms of my own Department and those agencies under my authority the intensification of practical measures to generate increased job opportunities on a sectoral basis.
Is the factory going to be kept open?
In this connection I am happy that in a statement yesterday the board of the Sugar Company made particular reference to the employment aspects of their Thurles operations. But Deputy Lowry does not want that known. He wants to distort it.
I will be very pleased if the Minister will give me an assurance that the factory will remain open.
Deputy Lowry, the Minister has only a few minutes left.
If Deputy Lowry or Deputy Mitchell, who was a member of the previous Government, had shown the same interest in the Thurles sugar factory and in the Sugar Company generally, during their period in Government as they do in Opposition——
We did.
—— they would have ensured that the investment programme in Thurles would not have run down.
(Interruptions.)
Is there going to be a factory in Thurles or not?
What about the Minister's promises?
The suggestion has been made that I am trying to nobble the board. I repudiate what Deputy Lowry is requiring me to do, that is, to intervene in the working of the board. When the proposal comes to me as Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Government and I will consider it and all its implications having regard to the priorities of Government in the Programme for National Recovery. Let that be clearly known. I did not attempt at any time to noble this board. As the Deputy knows, I was up all night and if he had wanted to give me adequate time to present all the facts he would have waited until Tuesday to raise this matter.
This matter was so important we wanted clarification before Tuesday. Is the factory going to remain open?
Yesterday morning, at the request of the chairman of the board——
Answer the question. Is the Minister keeping his promises?
——we had a very important and useful discussion. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman and other members of the board for that discussion.
Will the factory stay open?
I repudiate entirely any suggestions that I, as Minister, was nobbling the board.
I would expect the Minister to do whatever is needed to ensure a viable operation in Thurles.
If Deputy Lowry wants to distort the decision of the board, he says the decision was taken to axe Thurles——
How else would the Minister describe it?
—— he wants to ignore the run down in investment——
Will the Minister give an assurance that it will not happen?
Reassure the House that the factory will remain open.
Please Deputies, let the Minister conclude without interruption.
I am very pleased that yesterday the board unanimously gave a major commitment——
Which is?
——to the employment maximisation of the operation in Thurles. When the plan is presented to me as Minister I will give it full consideration.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 27 November 1987.