Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 1990

Vol. 395 No. 7

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Privatisation of State Companies.

Brian O'Shea

Question:

16 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has any plans or proposals for the privatisation or commercialisation of any of the companies or agencies under his control; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Brendan Howlin

Question:

18 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline his views regarding the recent statement by the chairperson of the Irish Sugar Company to the effect that a share of that company might be sold to the private sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Joe Sherlock

Question:

48 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the Government's plans for the future expansion and development of the Irish Sugar Company, especially in light of its record performance in 1989; if he will outline the Government's reaction to the suggestion made by the chairperson of the Irish Sugar Company that part of the company should be privatised; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Brian O'Shea

Question:

60 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his views on whether the sale of a proportion of the Irish Sugar Company to a person (details supplied) will give the person concerned a dominant position in the manufacture and distribution of Irish sugar; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Liam Kavanagh

Question:

63 Mr. Kavanagh asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the consideration which has been given by the Government to the possible privatisation of all or part of the Irish Sugar Company; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 18, 48, 60 and 63 together.

Because of the view of the EC Commission that the continued operation of the Dublin and Cork District Milk Boards could not be justified under Community law, the Government decided that the milk boards should be dissolved and replaced by a National Milk Agency which would regulate the liquid milk market on a countrywide basis. The Government also decided that the boards assets should be disposed of. Consultations are currently taking place with a view to implementing this decision.

There are at present no plans for the privatisation or commercialisation of the other companies or agencies under the control of the Department but, as stated in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 6 on 30 November 1989, the Government set up an ad hoc committee to prepare a report on the options for the future development of Siúicre Éireann. This committee are at present finalising their report, which is expected to be submitted to the Government shortly. Pending consideration of the report it is not possible to indicate what decisions will be taken on the future development of the company.

Would the Minister of State inform the House if recent reports which suggested that plans have been finalised at the Sugar Company's headquarters to sell off 25 per cent of the company to the private sector are correct? If so, can he tell us if the workers were consulted bearing in mind the sacrifices they have made to keep the company going and strong? Furthermore, was any consideration given to the need to protect beet growers should the company be privatised?

I would refer the Deputy to the annual report of the Sugar Company, which was well publicised, in which the chairman suggested the possibility of going to the Stock Market with 25 per cent but, as I said in my reply, the ultimate decision rest with the Government. That remains the position. I want to assure the Deputy and the House that the important asset of our sugar quota will be protected no matter what the future of the company may be.

In a statement he made in 1989 the Taoiseach referred to speculation about privatisation of the Sugar Company and indicated that this had never been considered by the Government. May we take it from what the Minister of State has said that there is no question of the Government considering privatisation? The chairman of the board, Mr. Cahill, made the statement without first having discussions at board level. Now that the company is in good shape there seems to be great interest in privatisation but the question is, may we take it that it is Government policy not to allow the company or any part of it to be privatised?

I said in my reply that the chairman in the annual report made certain suggestions. He also acknowledged that any decision on the future of the company is a matter for the Government, who have made no decision as yet. To date they have not received a report from the ad hoc committee which they established to examine the options for the future development of the company. Therefore they are not yet in a position to even consider that report let alone make a decision on it.

Will the board of the Sugar Company be given an opportunity to look at the consultants' report? Will the Minister say who the consultants are and when he expects to receive their report?

The group is made up of officials from the Departments of Finance and Agriculture and Food and the Industrial Development Authority. I understand they are finalising their report, which should be completed in a matter of weeks.

Would the Minister agree that the chairman of the Sugar Company acted without authority and that what he said was incorrect given the Minister of State's reply? If so, would he agree that the chairman of the Sugar Company is no longer fit to be chairman of the company and should be removed?

Please, Deputy, attacks of this nature on persons outside the House are quite unjustified.

I am not mounting an attack——

It is a very serious allegation.

——I am simply making a proposal; I am not seeking to make an allegation.

Deputy Stagg——

I am not making any allegation. I am referring to the chairman's statement and the Minister of State's reply.

There is a convention in this House that we do not refer to persons outside the House in such a fashion. This is a privileged assembly and such persons have no redress against accusations made against them in the House. The Minister is responsible.

Let me ask the Minister of State as the person responsible if he would agree that the chairman was incorrect and acted without authority and that he should now be removed from his position?

The Deputy is clearly defying the ruling of the Chair in this matter.

That is not my intention.

There is no smoke without fire.

I am very anxious that my question be in order. I do not seek to be disorderly. May I restate the question?

Be careful if you do.

The Minister of State is anxious to reply. Would he agree that the chairman was incorrect and acted without authority? Can he tell us what action he now proposes to take?

First, I want to pay tribute to the chairman of the Sugar Company. He has an excellent record and happens to be a constituent of mine and a neighbour of my friend, Deputy Sheehan. He lives in Schull.

There is no smoke without fire.

He has closed a couple of sugar factories.

I am surprised that Deputy Sheehan should cast a reflection on the quite outstanding performance of the chairman of the Sugar Company.

Including its sell-off.

Under his direction the net profits of the company increased from £9.2 million in 1987 to £14.9 million in 1989. That is an impressive record.

Therefore there is no reason to sell it off.

Can the Minister of State tell us when legislation will be introduced to set up a national milk purchasing agency?

That is a long way from sugar.

It is in the question.

I was asked about State agencies under the aegis of my Department and that supplementary relates to that question. Draft legislation has been prepared and is ready for circulation. However, I am not sure when it will be taken in the House.

We have had to listen to this reply for far too long. During the last session a promise was given that it would be taken this session. Now we do not know when it will be introduced. Liquid milk producers are most frustrated by the delays in the Department. Would the Minister of State give an unequivocal undertaking that this legislation will be introduced in the House in either this or the next session?

I agree that it is desirable that this legislation be introduced as soon as possible. I will talk to the Whips to see if it can be introduced at an early date.

Top
Share