Deputy Spring gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the pending closure of the Sugar Company factory at Thurles.
Adjournment Debate. - Thurles Sugar Factory.
At the outset I wish to inform you that I am prepared to share my time with Deputy Lowry, if that is in accordance with the wishes of the House.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I also thank the Minister for Agriculture and Food for being present for what I consider to be a very important issue.
There are certain matters in relation to the announcement that was made by the Sugar Company board in recent weeks which need to be addressed. I have to say with some regret that the behaviour of the Minister for Agriculture and Food in the weeks since the announcement was made has been nothing short of disgraceful. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that his only interest has been in preserving his own political career. Now that we hear today he has sent in consultants to the Sugar Company yet again, I can only conclude he is further fudging the issues involved in the Sugar Company.
We must ask why at this stage, after all these years, the Government consider it necessary to appoint more consultants? Are there any facts in relation to the Sugar Company that are not known at this stage? Is the Minister simply trying to buy time? Rumour has it that members of the board are due to be replaced by members who might be more compliant with the Minister's wishes. There have been rumours of interference with the independence of the board in relation to making commercial decisions. The Minister must inform this House tonight about the manner in which he is approaching this issue. We are entitled to some reassurance that the Minister is dealing with this in the most above-board way possible and that his only concern is for the long term survival of the sugar industry here.
I do not believe we are talking only about Thurles in this debate. The last two weeks have been absolutely disastrous from the point of view of the Thurles plant and from the point of view of the morale of the Sugar Company itself. It is hard to reconcile the facts in this case. I have before me the Minister's statement of 9 February 1987 which makes very interesting reading when compared with the lack of statements on the Minister's part in the last two weeks. The Minister said that Fianna Fáil would commit themselves to the development of new byproducts in agriculture and to the strengthening of each semi-State enterprise to achieve maximum employment and added value in this sector and that Thurles sugar factory was just such an enterprise.
Perhaps the Deputy would give the reference.
It is a statement made by "Michael O'Kennedy, TD, Fianna Fáil spokesman on Finance", in Thurles on 9 February 1987.
What document is it?
It is a document which I do not think the Minister denies issuing. It was signed by Deputy Michael O'Kennedy and was requesting votes for O'Kennedy and Smith. It makes rather ironical reading two years later. It goes on to outline how Thurles would be developed, how the factory in Thurles was opened by Fianna Fáil and would be preserved by Fianna Fáil, how the company would develop, how they would have new by-products in agriculture and how they would strengthen the company. It is startling reading in view of what has happened in the past two weeks.
We have now got to the ludicrous stage where on Sunday last the Minister would not even answer questions in relation to the Sugar Company. It is hard to credit that a Minister could actually have a statement made on his behalf in London on Sunday that he would not be answering questions on the Sugar Company because he would not answer such questions in the absence of Minister Smith.
There are questions to which the public, the workers in the Sugar Company and the country as a whole are entitled to have answers. What are the terms of reference of the latest consultants who have been appointed? Who is in charge at this stage? The Minister for Agriculture and Food has responsibility for the Sugar Company. What directives have been given to the board of the Sugar Company? What consultations has the Minister had in relation to the Sugar Company? Are they entitled to make decisions as a board in regard to the future of the company? What are the prospects of the Thurles sugar factory surviving? Many people in Thurles are totally confused by what has happened in the past two weeks.
Will the Minister outline to this House tonight whether he is committed to the future of the Sugar Company not just in Thurles but as a commercial State enterprise? What plans does he have for the expansion and development of a company who have made substantial profits in the last number of years? They had profits in the region of £11 million two years ago and they look like heading for the same level of profits this year. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten us on what is happening in relation to alternative projects for Thurles? In regard to the negotiations taking place with Finn sugar, are they serious or are they spurious? Are they a distraction? What has taken place to date? Are the Government in favour of a joint venture with an outside body? Perhaps the Minister could also outline the state of negotiations in relation to those people who are going to lose their jobs if the Sugar Company close.
I have said in the past that I am opposed to the privatisation of semi-State bodies. In a case like this where profit is being made things may have to be done, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to forego the interests of the Government, the taxpayers and the State in these companies. If the Minister has plans in mind for the privatisation of this company I would ask him to make those known to the House now rather than having it done and then informing the House later. If that is going to happen this House should be informed and a debate should take place here as to what the Government intend for the Sugar Company. If the Minister sets out on the road to privatisation I, for one, will question his motives. I will be asking if they are for his preservation within the constituency of North Tipperary, or if they are for the preservation of the Sugar Company as we have known it.
Before anything happens this House is entitled to be informed of what the Minister has in mind. How do we know, if discussions on privatisation have taken place, that the sugar quota — an invaluable item within the restrictions of the EC at present — is not the main target? What guarantees do we have on job preservation, because jobs are an integral part of the Sugar Company? Can the Minister tell us tonight if jobs will be preserved? Will there be job losses? Exactly what does he, as Minister for Agriculture and Food, as the person responsible to the people of this country for the sugar industry, have in mind? What does he and the Department of Agriculture and Food foresee happening at this point?
If the Minister is going down the road of privatisation could he inform us whether the Sugar Company are more valuable with the Thurles plant in operation or without it? Is it not a possibility that if the Sugar Company as we know it is sold with the Thurles plant as a struggling part of that company it would tend to under-value the company? Is the Minister going to face up to his responsibility? Can he give an assurance to this House that privatisation is not being considered or, if it is being considered, on what terms is it being considered? What guarantees will be given to him as Minister in relation to jobs, investment, marketing and the future viability of the company? If there is private sector involvement, are we talking about three sugar plants or two? I raise these questions because of the uncertainty and the lack of clarity over the last number of weeks.
The board made a statement in relation to their plans. The Minister's statements to date have been very incoherent. Perhaps he will inform us whether the board are entitled to make these decisions or if the commercial decisions are within the ambit of the Sugar Company board. If they have made decisions in relation to closure, do they have the final say or have the Government decided that the Sugar Company plant in Thurles will continue in operation? Does it have a future? In the event of it closing, I would like to ask the Minister what is the state of play in relation to alternative industries. Will the jobs be guaranteed or will there be job continuity?
From the views being put forward from Thurles — a town which is probably divided in relation to what is happening at present — people are unsure, insecure and absolutely at sea in relation to the lack of clarity in the statements that have been made in the last number of weeks. I would like to think that the Minister responsible could inform this House on the matter. Let us have a rational debate in this House on the future of the Sugar Company. I have grave doubts whether we are talking about the Thurles sugar factory only or whether this debate is the beginning of the end for the sugar industry as we know it in this country.
Firstly, I thank Deputy Spring for his generous gesture in sharing his time. On a number of occasions the Minister and I have exchanged views and pleasantries on this major issue for both of us in North Tipperary. I warned him in this House in November 1987 that his acceptance of the Irish Sugar Company's five year corporate plan effectively spelt doom for the Thurles plant. The board of that plant clearly stated that the company were actively seeking an alternative industry. I requested the Minister then and on several occasions since to intervene and instruct the company to desist from that course of action. At that time my position was ridiculed. I was accused of scaremongering and told there was no foundation for my views.
Unfortunately, my worst fears have become a reality. The decision to close the Thurles plant has now been taken by the board. Since the announcement we have been treated to an unseemly and distasteful public wrangle between the Minister and the Sugar Company, with charge and counter-charge the order of the day. It is clearly obvious that there are serious discrepancies and conflicting reports in the Minister's version and that of the company on the sequence of events leading up to the decision to close the Thurles plant. Tonight I call on the chairman of the Irish Sugar Company board to officially respond and to clarify all the issues recently raised.
Subsequent to the closure decision I stated locally in North Tipperary that the Thurles plant could be saved only by Government intervention. I called on the Minister, together with his colleague in the Department of Energy, Deputy Michael Smith, to bring this matter to the attention of the Cabinet with a view to instructing the company to review their decision. The Minister responded publicly by stating that as the principal share-holder he had the final decision. I understand from press reports that yesterday in London he changed that view and stated that it was a Government decision. Assuming that this is now the Minister's official position, I would ask when can we expect a Government decision. What are the Minister and Deputy Smith doing to influence the outcome? The all too predictable decision to appoint consultants is a sham. It is a cynical ploy to stall making a decision and will do nothing other than prolong the agony.
It is imperative that the Government clarify their intentions regarding the Thurles sugar plant. It is time to set aside the semantics and the charade and to come clean on this issue. The unfortunate permanent and part-time workers and their families who pin such faith in the Minister's promises and those of the Fianna Fáil Party are entitled to know where they stand. They feel let down. Morale is at an all time low. They are bewildered and confused.
Farmers, agricultural contractors and hauliers who have invested heavily in the beet crop and growers who rely on this vital income to maintain viable holdings wish to be informed urgently of the contract system for the current year. The business community are paralysed with the prospect of the demise of the plant and the local economy. We need decisive and positive action and a sense of direction. I would say, please face up to the decision. Tell us if the Thurles sugar plant will be saved and, if so, the level of investment to be made in modernising the plant. In the event of the Government failing to deliver and reneging on their commitments, let us work to achieve alternative viable and sustainable jobs for an area that is devastated by unemployment, emigration and a depressed economy.
Further deliberate fudging of the issue will spell disaster for Thurles. Not only could we lose the plant but the alternative jobs on offer from the Sugar Company will also be placed in serious jeopardy. I am aware that in view of the public controversy, two of the promoters of new industry are today seriously contemplating abandoning their proposals for Thurles. The Goodman and Finn offers being pursued for whatever reasons by the Minister are not practical or feasible. In one form or another they would ensure the dismantling of the Irish Sugar Company and spell ruin for the Irish sugar industry. It is my view that after unnecessary and expensive consultancy reports and protracted debate, the Minister will have initiated a futile and meaningless exercise because he will stand no chance of receiving the support of the Taoiseach and his Cabinet colleagues for such inane proposals. I have no doubt that any proposals in the line of privatisation or disposing of part of the national sugar quota to a private enterprise would meet with a hostile reaction from almost everybody involved in the company's operations.
In response to the appointment of consultants, the Irish Sugar Company have tonight stated their intention to proceed with the closure of the Thurles plant. I would ask the Minister one simple question: what is he and the Government going to do about that statement? Will they allow the Sugar Company to close the Thurles plant? In line with questions which have been asked by Deputy Spring, I would like to know what are the terms of reference for this consultancy report? I do not see the necessity for additional consultancy reports. There have been several reports on the Irish Sugar Company and everybody is aware of the problems.
Earlier this year the Minister for Finance — in line with a directive which he gave to all other semi-State bodies — issued a directive to the Irish Sugar Company stating that they must be run on a commercially viable basis, that they cannot depend on the Government for further equity and that effectively they must get their house in order. Everybody is fully conscious of the problems facing that industry. I would say to the Minister that it is absolutely essential that whatever terms of reference he has given the consultancy committee, they should be asked to report back not in a matter of months but in a matter of weeks.
Nobody in Thurles or in Tipperary is prepared to wait any longer for the Government to make a decision on the matter. The facts are quite clear. As far as the people of Thurles are concerned the plant there is viable and profit making and is absolutely essential to the local economy. It is the hub of industrial activity in that area. Without it Thurles would be a wilderness. I am asking the Minister to exercise his ministerial authority and to ensure, together with his colleagues, that the Government make a decision with haste in favour of the Thurles plant.
On a point of order, I would like to ask the Minister if he would give me a few minutes to make a case on issues that have not been highlighted in this instance.
It is a matter for the Minister to share his time as he so desires. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
As a beet grower supplying the Thurles Sugar factory and as a former beet growers' representative I would have to say that the semi-State Irish Sugar Company's recommendation to close the Thurles plant is a narrow, self-interest matter. The proposed closure must be looked at from a national point of view. The implications of such regressive action are of serious national importance, first, in terms of the destruction of our road system. There are 200,000 tonnes of beet currently being drawn by rail from south Wexford and this will obviously move onto the road. That means there will be 100 extra articulated trucks on our already decimated road system in the frosty winter months with consequent further damage and danger. Who will foot the bill in this instance to the county councils of Wexford, Kilkenny, Carlow, Waterford, Tipperary or others? The empty promise of the beet being taken by rail from the highly successful beet reception depot at Wellington Bridge in south Wexford to Mallow is seen by all of us for what it is, a sop to sell the closure. Second, the beet season — 67 days long this year — will stretch into January, making it over 100 days long, with consequent losses to the beet growers and sugar loss to the company because their highly funded research and development programme failed to produce a method of beet storage. The farmers of south Wexford have invested enormously in machinery to handle beet for rail transport. The Sugar Company have invested over £1 million in Wellington Bridge. Is all this investment to become redundant?
Will there be any chance for the Minister to speak?
Third, the closure of the Thurles Sugar factory will meet with favour from CIE because it will render the rail line less viable. Since CIE are anxious to close that rail line it may be closed. There is no rail line to the west from the biggest passenger port. I am asking the Sugar Company to take off the blinkers and I urge the Minister and the Cabinet to delay a decision for a year and let us all have a proper and open-minded debate on this whole issue.
I welcome the chance to reply very briefly to the debate and to the points made by Deputy Spring and Deputy Lowry. I should like to ask the two Deputies to make up their minds as to what exactly they want me to do. I understand that Deputy Spring is suggesting that I am interfering too much in the affairs of the Sugar Company. While Deputy Lowry, on the other hand, insists that I should interfere directly and tell the Sugar Company what to do. It is typical of what is being done in this debate here tonight, everyone is demanding that one thing or the other be done. In response to what Deputy Spring has said, I propose to indicate the commitment of this Government to the Sugar Company generally and to all elements, including Thurles, of that Sugar Company.
Deputy Spring has accused me of behaving disgracefully not just in this House but on our news media this evening. I will leave that to the judgment of the people who listen to those kinds of charges. However, I will merely say that for a man who has only recently become so concerned for the future of the Sugar Company generally, and Thurles in particular, the Deputy's record and now that of his Coalition colleagues — they rejoined the Coalition this evening — speaks for itself.
Why not give us the facts.
I want to put the facts on the record. I did not interrupt anybody in the course of this debate. During Deputy Spring's period in Government the investment in Thurles was £3.5 million, while it was £12 million in Mallow and £17 million in Carlow. During the previous four years under the Fianna Fáil Government the investment in Thurles was £7.8 million, in Carlow £8.1 million and in Mallow £10.9 million. Deputy Spring now comes in here crying crocodile tears about what has happened to Thurles.
(Interruptions.)
In the same connection may I tell Deputy Lowry that he talked about the five year plan being the deathknell of Thurles. If that is the case I would remind Deputy Lowry that the five year plan was passed and adopted during the period of the Coalition Government in which Deputy Spring was Leader of his party and in which that party were participating fully.
That is a completely false and inaccurate statement.
Please, Deputies.
I might point out to the Deputies — if they would listen, as I listened to them, — that by contrast this year again under Fianna Fáil, the level of investment in the various plants was, £5.25 million in Carlow, £4.635 million in Mallow and £4.108 million in Thurles, plus £3 million in a reserve fund for the Thurles plant area for alternative development, if appropriate.
For the alternative industry.
Please Deputy Lowry, you had your say.
Both Deputies have asked me what our concern is. This Government have signalled very clearly that we are conscious of our commitments to all concerned as outlined in the Programme for National Recovery. At a meeting in May 1987 with the board of the Sugar Company I indicated that we would be particularly anxious that they would promote the interests of employment, market development and product development to maximise, in accordance with our commitments to the partners in the Programme for National Recovery, employment opportunities at every level through the State sector as in the private sector. The commitment in that programme is that the State-sponsored bodies will be actively encouraged and facilitated to develop and diversify their economic employment creating activities. That remains the priority of this Government in accordance with our commitment in that programme and in accordance with our obligations to the community generally. I should like to answer Deputy Spring that our commitment is not just to Thurles but to the workers, the people concerned and to Siúicre Éireann generally. I want to see a situation where, under this Government, the whole agri-food exports have expanded to a point well in excess of anything experienced under the previous Government to the equivalent of the rest of manufacturing industry. I want to see every sector, private and semi-State, playing a full part in that development. I should like to say to the Deputies who queried why I did not say this or that during the past two weeks that they must not have been aware that in the past five or six days I was engaged, at the invitation of my German counterpart, at Green Week in Berlin and in London promoting a very important Irish programme. I do not choose — and I say this deliberately — to comment on domestic issues when I am engaged in a major promotion such as that. I adhere to that position.
In the absence of Minister Smith.
I did not say that at any time. I repudiate totally any such comment and I am glad the Deputy gave me the opportunity of doing so. I wish that whoever misled the Deputy would now repudiate what they said.
I will pass on the cutting from the Irish Press.
Press cuttings do not always tell the full story. Regarding the interests of the Government our only interest is the maximisation of employment guaranteed with a very effective market development, product development policy through all of this company, not just in Thurles but in Mallow, Carlow and wherever else. What we have in the private sector is what we have in the public sector. The same standards apply. The issue remains one of major consideration for this Government.
What about privatisation of Thurles?
Please Deputies, let us hear the Minister without interruption. His time is limited.
Interests have been expressed and they are a matter for the people concerned to publicly indicate as they have done. If interests are expressed matters can be discussed. There are no firm proposals but if people express interest they are free to discuss matters. I do not suppose there is any objection unless we are entering into a new state of discussions to see how best we can sustain, in the interests of the workers and all concerned, a viable enterprise that can beat the best as in other sectors, such as the agri-food sector. We are not always cast in the role of having to react or retrench. We have a capacity to be proactive and to march ahead of others. That is the issue here.
Can the Minister tell me if Thurles is going to remain open and leave the waffle out?
Please Deputy. The time is almost up.
Finally, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions indicated that they have some concern. Statements have issued from bodies concerned. If they are anxious to meet me or any member of this Government I will not only be anxious but very willing to meet them to discuss all the issues involved. I would say to those who presided over the downturn in investment and who are now crying——
Is Thurles to remain open?
——that they can be guaranteed a much better, more positive, more vigorous and confident response from this Government than anything they got from the Coalition when they had responsibility.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us in one line what the consultants functions are.
The Minister's reply has concluded the debate.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 February 1989.