Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1991

Vol. 406 No. 1

Sugar Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:
In page 2, lines 25 to 29, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) (a) The Minister shall at all times maintain his equitable holding in the Holding Company at at least 51 per cent of the total equitable shars of that Company.
(b) the Minister shall retain 15 per cent of the equitable shares for the beet growers and for the employees of the Company.".
—(Deputy Kavanagh.)

I would like to continue the points I was making before I reported progress. I want to reassure the House that it is the intention of the Government to give full recognition to the special position of the workers and beet growers in making available to them preference shares at discount rates. In addition the company have agreed, in consultation with the Government — this is very significant — to make loans available to the workers at 10 per cent interest rate for the purchase of the shares, which will in any event be at a preferred level and not at the level that would prevail on the open market. As I mentioned already, the interest on these loans will be tax deductible. I mentioned that particularly to Deputy Sherlock who was understandably anxious to be reassured that workers would be not only interested in but able to acquire the shares.

I addressed another point from Deputy Kavanagh and I will reiterate the position so that there will be no doubt as to the exact breakdown of shareholding. The shareholding of the Minister for Finance will be 45 per cent. In addition, the Minister for Agriculture and Food will hold a special share — we will debate that in a moment when we come to that section — which gives power to protect a whole range of issues that will ensure that the interests of the company, the workers and the beet growers cannot be undermined. When dealing with the special shares I will outline in detail what they are.

In addition — this is unprecedented, although what we are doing is new and therefore everything in that regard is unprecedented — shares will be made available to the workers and beet growers at a preferred level. Discussions are continuing on an additional percentage to be made available to one or other of these categories. I hope that clearly demonstrates that the Government are getting the balance right. We want to have sufficient shares to offer to the market on flotation. We want to be able to attract funds for the development of this new company, Greencore, and also to return a dividend to shareholders. This is the purpose of this exercise. From what I have just said it should be evident that we have not only demonstrated our goodwill but much more than that, because it is not just a matter of soft words and sweet music: we have put it into practical, binding effect in most instances in terms of the legislation I am now asking the House to adopt but also supplemented by the articles of association of the company. It should be clear that any talk of the sugar quota being disposed of — we will come to that in a moment — is out. I cannot stop people from suggesting it but it is not even a remote risk. There is no fear of multinationals gobbling up the company with workers and beet growers not being protected. I hope I have demonstrated that what I always proposed to do — and Deputy Kavanagh's suggestions — are exactly in line.

I hoped that my proposals and those of the Minister were in line and he was cleared, to some extent, exactly what the various holdings will be between the State and the private sector. If the Minister reads the explanatory memorandum he will see that this section also provides for the sale or disposal of shares held by the Minister in the holding company, following consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Food, to such specified persons and on such terms and conditions as the Minister may prescribe by regulation pursuant to this section. I assume that refers to employees and growers——

Yes, that was the reason for it.

The Minister has gone to extreme lengths when the matter could have been simplified if he had adopted my amendment. It is clear, from what the Minister said, that he will hold 45 per cent of the shares which cannot, under this Bill, be sold to the private sector. However, his successor may have a different attitude. There could be a reshuffle and the Minister might go to the top of the class——

(Carlow-Kilkenny): He is there already.

We might get a Progressive Democrat Minister who might have a totally different attitude from that of Minister O'Kennedy. We are not trying to drag out this debate but, when the discussion is over, I want to be able to tell people who have come to me with their problems in relation to it that they need not worry because the Minister assured the House that he is holding on to 5 per cent and that no one can take that away and sell it in the Stock Exchange or anywhere else. I want to be able to say that 10 per cent or more will go to the growers and employees and that there will be a special share to ensure even greater protection.

We will shortly debate the special share so I will not speak about it now but I have many reservations in regard to it and its adequacy in future, particularly after 1992. I know that the Minister believes that rights are built into the Bill and our concerns taken on board but it would have been much easier to do what we proposed, that he would hold 51 per cent of the shares and that there would be 15 per cent — or something approaching that — for the growers and workers. I am not reassured that the Minister will not be able to sell part or all of his holding in the company.

The Minister said that 45 per cent of the shares will be held by the Minister for Finance. However, he did not clarify whether the 15 per cent allocated to the growers and the workers will come from the 45 per cent——

Did the Minister say it was from the 45 per cent?

No, the amount which will go to the workers and growers will be in addition to the 45 per cent.

Therefore, 60 per cent of shares in the new company will be held by the Minister for Finance, the growers and the workers. Is that correct?

Provided, of course, they apply for them. Workers or beet growers cannot be forced to take shares. They will be available to them at preferential rates.

I still stick by what I said earlier today. Having discussed the matter with workers, it is clear that very often they are not in a position to take out loans or to pay additional taxes. If the Minister wants to be specific and, as this is such an important matter, why was it not written into the Bill? Will the Minister table an amendment to this effect so that we will see exactly what is in legislation instead of leaving it in mid air?

The Minister also said that he would refer to the protection of the sugar quota and I await his reply to that later.

I made the point that every detail cannot be included in legislation. We have entered into an agreement between the company and the workers but there are legal instruments in the articles of association, to which I referred already, which will cover the matter. The Minister for Finance will be giving an undertaking in the prospectus in respect of the shares he holds. I do not think I can go much further than that.

A question arose earlier regarding collusion between groups of shareholders; that is specifically prohibited under the articles of memorandum of association and, even in this legislation, it is quite clear that I have the power, as Minister for Agriculture and Food, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, to prevent the accumulation of shares above 15 per cent in the hands of any one individual.

We are debating legislation which, we contend, has serious implications for the country and yet the Minister referred to articles of association which will contain the answers to some of the problems we raised. Why have we not been supplied with a copy?

Deputy Sherlock made a crucial point. Before I came into the House I checked with the Bills Office as to whether they had seen the memorandum and articles of association but they do not know any more about it than I do. I want to preface my remarks by saying that I am not questioning for one minute the Minister's veracity and I hope he will listen to me patiently. So much of this hinges on the fact that section 2 empowers the Minister to do certain things subject to the memorandum and articles of association of the holding company. Having regard to the importance of this measure, it is asking us to accept a great deal to take some of the major questions with which the Minister dealt and sidelined by saying that they are adequately dealt with in the memorandum and articles of association. We have not seen it and we do not know whether they are, for example, I would be very glad — at the risk of testing the Minister's patience — if he would again take us through the shareholding. He made the point that collusion will be prohibited but I cannot see, practically or commercially, how that can be done. I am all ears if the Minister wishes to explain. Will the Minister again explain how the 45 per cent will be retained by the Government? Surely, as Deputy Sherlock and Deputy Kavanagh said, the situation can change? Let me give an instance; the whole purpose of this exercise is — at least partially — to raise funds for the diversification of the Sugar Company for their development and so on.

Suppose at any stage there is a rights issue or whatever as very probably there will be, and the new holding company decide to raise money is the Minister going to subscribe to maintain the State's holding at whatever level it is when we enact this measure? I understood the whole essence of the case was that there would be no further demands on the taxpayer. That was the merit of the agreement between the Minister and Deputy Deasy, but surely if we are to subscribe to maintain our stakeholding at what it is now, as is most probable, it will require an injection of funds by the taxpayer to maintain that stateholding.

It is not a question of not taking the Minister at his word. He has said he will be the first Minister to cause a flotation of a State company, but major elements of the pig-in-the-poke we are supposed to buy are side-lined away either in the memorandum and articles of association or in the protocol by the Minister for Finance to regulate the flotation. That is asking us for a giant leap of faith in the circumstances. I see no commitment to maintaining the level of the stakeholding at this stage.

I would like the Minister to explain again how it is going to be 45 per cent in any event. What we have heard so far is too vague, too hazy in terms of the commitments we have to date. I have a second point about whether the 10 per cent will be subscribed by beet growers, workers and so on. I would like clarification on the amount being retained in ownership by the State.

I indicated today, and I will repeat this in case it was not picked up by any Member or by Members generally, that the time of the flotation is the point at which the Minister for Finance will acquire his 45 per cent. He cannot acquire 45 per cent in a company who have not been floated.

At that point the Minister for Finance will acquire the 45 per cent but at what price or value I cannot say definitely because that will depend on the market flotation. That is the clear position.

Everything about this legislation is, of course, new and, therefore, if I say something unprecedented is being done that is understandable. The second point is that it is the intention of the Minister for Finance at that time to indicate the position clearly in the prospectus of the company so that all who have any interest in acquiring any equity will be aware of the position of the Minister for Finance. What more can one do?

Many of the apprehensions discussed relate to the special share. I said the special share is in addition to what is there in the name of the Minister for Finance which is a standard interest the Minister for Finance has in all State companies in any event. As regards the workers and beet growers lest there be any doubt about it let me say the 10 per cent already designated is in addition to the 45 per cent held by the Minister for Finance. There is in addition a likely 5 per cent increase over and above that 10 per cent in respect of one or other of those categories on terms perhaps slightly different from those involved in the 10 per cent.

All that must indicate that we are concerned with not the holus-bolus sale of Irish Sugar but only part of it. When I said we were talking about a restructuring in partial privatisation that was by no means gilding the lily. That is what is involved and the restructuring and partial privatisation uniquely and quite properly have inbuilt guarantees for equity for the very first time for the workers of the Sugar Company. Like other Members I have met those workers for a variety of reasons over recent years and I think they will welcome this greatly.

I have now the figures for employment in the company when they were totally State dependent over the last number of years. I hope the experience in terms of employment will be much more positive in the new dynamic we are introducing than it has been. In 1981 there were 3,378 employees and by 1989 that had reduced to 1,556. It increased to 1,757 last year but that was due in the main to the acquisition of Odlums by Siúicre Éireann,. Nobody, from whatever viewpoint, would want to see that pattern continuing. We have an opportunity of literally ensuring the interests of all concerned and at the same time allowing Siúicre Éireann get out to the markets where there will be a great reception for them to expand to new ventures, new activities, new partners.

I have two questions on what the Minister said. First, the Minister will find in my amendment that I was asking him at subsection 2 (a) that "The Minister shall at all times maintain his equitable holding in the Holding Company at at least 51 per cent." The Minister has told us he is going to take 45 per cent. Section 2 (3) provides——

Sorry, the Minister for Finance will have the 45 per cent. I will have the special share.

I do not know if I can accept the guarantees the Minister is giving us today when I read in section 2 (3) that the Minister may sell "... by redemption or otherwise, on such terms and conditions, including preferential terms and conditions, as he thinks fit, all or any of such shares". That is the kernel of the difference between what he is suggesting in the Bill and what I am suggesting in the amendment. We want shares to be maintained in the hands of the Minister for Finance for all time, whereas the Minister is saying in the Bill that at some future date he may change his mind and do whatever he likes. That would be the position if the Bill goes through as it is.

I do not want to leave the House under any illusion. It is not the intention of the Bill to provide that something will be frozen in aspic for all time, that the Minister for Finance must hold that figure for ever and a day. That may be the inclination but I am not prepared to say in the light of possible market developments that the Minister for Finance will specifically and absolutely hold on to 45 per cent of the shares. I am saying the Minister will make a statement in the prospectus. Apart from anything else, the market is not as rigid as a rock. One has to have the capacity and flexibility to maximise the opportunities. I am not going to suggest for one moment that the Minister for Finance will divorce himself from that reality. I do not want to leave the House under any illusion about it.

Having said that, let me say that the guarantees about which Deputy Kavanagh is understandably concerned, do not attach to the amount of shareholding held by the Minister for Finance. The guarantees are written in the special share, and into the right of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and Food in consultation to prevent the accumulation of shares above 15 per cent with any one shareholder. One cannot get any better guarantee than that.

Having regard to what I have already said in relation to the amounts being made available for the workers, the beet growers and so on, the total tied up would amount to 60 per cent; we are talking about floating 40 per cent. Supposing an opportunity arose for a partner to develop somewhere in Europe, or wherever else, surely it would not be in the interests of the House, the workers or anybody else to say "you cannot budge, because the Minister for Finance will insist, and he has no intention of reducing the 45 per cent". There has to be something to float on the markets to enable the new company to have a degree of manoeuvrability.

Surely if that were to be the case and there was a possibility of something like that happening, we are not so hidebound that a change could not be made in the law? I thank the Minister for at long last coming out and telling the House that there is a possibility that the 45 per cent can reduce. What we are trying to do in my amendment is to prevent that happening. At least we have that straight, and that is why my amendment stands.

Earlier this morning, I was chided for perhaps making a drafting error. I might as well try to deal with it now and perhaps the Chair can help me. With the best advice from the Bills Office I was told that "equitable holding" was the proper term and not "equity holding". Deputy Garland tells me that it should be "equity holding". I know that will not stop the Minister opposing this amendment but if that is a problem in the drafting, I got it from another source.

I can only adjudicate on that at the moment and say that in the matter of accepting what might be regarded as suitable, obviously the Chair would have to side with the Chair rather than side with Deputy Garland.

On one point, I agree with the Left wing parties, Labour and The Workers' Party. There is a bit of a sting in the tail of this.

I did not think it would last long.

I do not see why the Minister cannot come out straight and use the word "privatise" or "privatisation". What is the Minister afraid of?

What are you afraid of? That is really what it is.

They do not call you Washington DC for nothing.

We are denationalising a nationalised body — you can call it what you want, but that is what it is. We are privatising what has been virtually a State body. I believe that there are a small number of independent shareholders but nobody seems to know who they are. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten us who these apparently ghost shareholders are, because we will hear later about ghost sugar.

It was my clear impression during the Second Stage Reading that the Minister for Finance was to initially have a 45 per cent holding in the new company but that that 45 per cent could and probably would be reduced as the new company became firmly established. It is common sense that if there was a likely acquisition of another food company, which it would be in the interests of the new Greencore company to acquire, and they needed £20 million or £40 million for the acquisition of that company, one way of raising the funds would be to sell off some of the shares. For argument sake, I would estimate the value of this company on the Stock Exchange at approximately £200 million, which would make 1 per cent worth approximately £2 million. If one wanted to raise £20 million one might sell 10 per cent and so on. I do not see why we should fudge an issue like that. We should all be clear and say it out straight.

All right——

Gabh mo leithscéal, a Aire. Deputy Kavanagh, I adjudicated rather fast on what you said. I thought the Deputy said he had got advice from the Chair but I gather it was from the Bills Office which is a different matter. Having looked at the Deputy's amendment it seems to me that the word "equity" rather than "equitable" is the appropriate word. The House can agree that we substitute the word "equity" in place of the word "equitable". Agreed.

It is nice to get something.

It is a minor detail compared to what was revealed by the Minister in his latest statement. As the debate continues and as the questions are put, more and more is being revealed. What has now been revealed is that the 45 per cent shareholding could be reduced. If it can be reduced at all, why can it not be wiped out completely? I will give an example. In November 1988 my party were invited to meet Mr. Goodman and his executive. On that occasion the Thurles factory was being debated, and Mr. Goodman made it clear to us that his interest was in buying into the Irish Sugar Company. He was about to acquire a majority shareholding in Beresford, the British sugar company. If he had done that——

Supposing.

He was near enough to it. If this legislation had been there at that time it was open to him to acquire the Irish Sugar Company, and where would we be now? Where would the Irish Sugar Company be now? It would be down the tube and we would be importing sugar. That is the problem we have with this legislation, unless the guarantee can be given.

When the Minister was addressing the House last he produced a document which gave the figures relating to the number of reductions in the numbers of employees. We know that. That is old hat. We know the number of employees was reduced from over 3,000 to 1,500.

I presume you want to change that?

Yes, we do.

This is the point. I was not going to embarrass the Minister by bringing over here a letter which the Minister had written and circulated in the Thurles area——

That has already been read here.

Minister, take it easy, that was only a couple of years ago, and he has not forgotten that. Neither has he forgotten about Tuam and the other situation. An agreement between the unions and the company to the installation of high technology resulted in both those factories——

That is the point.

——being so efficient in processing beet in a shorter period which made this company such an efficient company. It is at this point that the Government are deciding to privatise this company. That is the main objection. Unless we can safeguard our sugar quota, posterity will blame the Minister and the Government.

They are in terrible trouble with posterity.

That is a terrible sanction to have hanging over me. We can use that sanction in any debate on any issue in this House, so I will just take a chance on posterity. Let me reply to some of the points made. Deputy Deasy asked why we did not call it full blooded privatisation but I can tell him the Government took a deliberate decision not to privatise the company. The Deputy may not have the opportunity to see this as a Government decision for some time but he will note that I outlined the Government's formal decision in my Second Stage contribution.

Che sara sara.

I stated that in September 1989 the Government, having considered a report on the series of options put to them for the company, decided that further analysis should be undertaken. Accordingly, a small ad hoc group was set up comprising representatives of my own Department, the Department of Finance, the IDA and Siúicre Éireann to prepare a report on all the options for the company's future, including diversification with minimum financial risk. The options were — I want the House to understand the reason I cannot use the term which Deputy Deasy suggests I should use: first, the continuation of the present activities and structures, which is the option the Labour Party and The Workers' Party prefer; second, total privatisation — I am not saying that that is the option which Deputy Deasy has suggested but he has said that he would use that term; and the third option was partial privatisation and commercial development of the company while retaining a degree of State control over their sugar operations and the sugar quota.

The Government deliberately decided of those three options that they would go for option No. 3. That is the reason — I have done this already and I do not think it is necessary for me to do so again — I resist the suggestion that we are going for option No. 2. I have given the reasons we are not going for that option. Let me say to those Deputies who have spoken about the risk of our being swallowed up — I have said this so often I suppose I should not repeat myself again——

What about the 45 per cent?

The purpose of this debate is to elucidate detail. I never wanted to give the impression that the figure of 45 per cent is fixed for ever more and I have no difficulty in acknowledging — Deputy Deasy argued persuasively in favour of the line I had adopted myself — that 45 per cent is the figure at which the Minister will buy in but I also said to Deputy Kavanagh, and Deputy Deasy agreed that this is desirable, having regard to the commitments already given to the workers, that if the only way of raising extra money to introduce a new dynamic development policy is for the Minister for Finance to dispose of shares at a particular time we do not want to see anything frozen in aspic at this time. That having been said, when the company is floated the Minister for Finance will indicate in the prospectus his intentions for a specific period in relation to the figure of 45 per cent. It would not be in the interests of anybody at this time to say anymore than that. One can say all they like about technology but the facts are there. The last thing that the unions want, and I have discussed this with them many times, is a continuation of this. They have no ideological hang-ups and are concerned only about jobs.

As I have said already, and we will deal with this matter next, the real control lies in the special shareholding which will be held by the Minister for Agriculture and Food — which is not at the amount of 45 per cent which will be held by the Minister for Finance — and which will protect the assets of the company, including the quota and a range of other matters.

Finally, I wish to lay emphasis on the 15 per cent limit, on the fact that collusion will not be tolerated under the articles of association and that no one element or group will be able to combine together to acquire more than 15 per cent. I think all the guarantees are there.

I asked the Minister to say if, in the event of a situation of the kind put forward by Deputy Deasy arises, he would give a commitment that the Government would subscribe to maintain their shareholding. He did not answer the question at the time but has answered it since in reply to Deputy Kavanagh and Deputy Sherlock. We may as well be clear about this matter at this stage because I cannot understand why the Minister continues to talk in terms of part privatisation when we get him that far. As Deputy Deasy has said and I agree with him on this, what we are talking about is the privatisation of the Irish Sugar Company. There is no point in dressing it up — Tadhg an dhá thaobh. It would suit Fianna Fáil to bring both sides of the road with them. The fact of the matter is that we are on a slippery slope and a controlling interest will be disposed of. As soon as the inevitable demand for more funds arises we will not maintain our stakeholding at 45 per cent and it will gradually be diminished.

The Minister may well have a point when he says that for the remainder of this debate we should focus on the question of the special share but since Deputy Kavanagh's amendment relates to the question of what control we would have over critical issues like the quota and job creation, perhaps he could at this juncture of the debate say that we need have no concerns about control, that this will all be protected by the special share. I cannot see, once we formerly divest ourselves of a majority shareholding in the company, how we are going to maintain control. It is not acceptable for the Minister's Department to draft, complete and amend the memorandum and articles of association in preparation for the floatation without lodging them in the Dáil Library so that the rest of us can read them and give an informed response in this House to the articles of faith which he is asking us to believe. He may well be right but why are the articles of association not available to us so that we can read them?

There is no secret about the articles of association and the workers are fully aware of what is contained in them.

I am a member of Parliament.

I presume that the Deputy has some contact with the trade unions——

I do and if I did not I would know even less.

Then the Deputy will have no difficulty in having the information conveyed to him. The articles of association will have no status in legislation. Articles of Association have never been lodged in the parliamentary draftsman's office. However, they are available and if the Deputy consults with the unions he will be able to see them.

I did not ask for them to be brought within the legislative framework. All I asked is that they be made available in the Dáil Library so that we can read them as this is a critical question. The Minister is quite right, if I did not have contacts with the trade union movement I would not even know about the figure of 45 per cent; he chose to give that commitment in advance to them. We are being asked to study this legislation as Members of this House and not on the basis of what we have been advised outside of it. I agree with Deputy Deasy when he says that what we are voting for is the privatisation of the Sugar Company. It is perfectly legitimate for us on these benches and the Minister to hold our points of view but it is not fair for the Minister to allege that the Members on these benches are not concerned about the employment trend, that somehow we approve of the trend that he outlined and that we oppose a reversal of that trend so that more jobs can be created by the Sugar Company and in the food sector. That is not our objective for all of the reasons — and I do not want to take up the time of the House — that we put forward before progress was reported earlier today. Our primary concern is that we should maintain control over this segment of the food industry because we could use it as a vehicle for job creation. That is the critical issue. I will take some convincing that we will have any control after this debate.

It seems to the Chair that the continuation in this vein is doing little more than fanning the fire which attended the debate before we reported progress. I would also remind the House that there are other amendments that will be reached and we can have a discussion on the section. I would suggest that the time has come when we should endeavour to dispose of this amendment, otherwise the Chair will have to be reminding Deputies and the Minister that they are guilty of repetition and discussing matter which is not pertinent to the amendment.

I agree. I want this 51 per cent shareholding frozen in granite, not in aspic. The Minister has decided that his 45 per cent is a variable sum downwards. That is why I am pressing this amendment.

On a note of flippancy, I suppose it is not unusual for a Wicklow man to look for granite.

It is pretty hard stuff.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 115; Níl, 25.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Bell, Michael.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Ferris.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

We will now deal with amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Sherlock. May I draw the attention of the Members of the House and ask for their indulgence while I suggest that as amendments Nos. 5, 6, 9, and 19 to 21, inclusive, are related and amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consequential on amendment No. 6, it is proposed with the agreement of the House to take amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20 and 21 together for discussion purposes, but as we have indicated in the past, separate questions may be put on any of the subsequent amendments.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 2, subsection (2), line 29, after "Holding Company.", to insert the following:

"Such share shall not be disposed of by the Minister for Agriculture and Food or his nominees, nor shall it be so used as to diminish the said Minister's legal or equitable holding within the Holding Company.".

The all-important issue which we are confronting is the protection of the sugar quota. Our sugar quota is 200,000 tonnes. The sugar is manufactured from the beet grown in our own fields and the back-up service given to the growers by the Sugar Company over the years is second to none, with the result that we have a very high quality product and the spin-off from that is very large indeed.

The proposed shareholding in the new company has been debated at length and we are still not happy about what the exact position is. Section 2 proposes that the Minister, following consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Food, will be able to exchange any shares of the company for the time being vested in him or his nominees for shares in the holding company, and acquire from time to time, by subscription, purchase, capitalisation issues or otherwise any share or shares in the holding company. According to section 2 (2) it shall be lawful for the Minister for Agriculture and Food to acquire by subscription, purchase, capitalisation issue or otherwise and to hold upon, and subject to, the memorandum and articles of association of the holding company, a special share which shall be issued by the holding company.

Therein lies the kernel of the issue that we are now debating. According to the memorandum and articles of association of the holding company the Minister shall hold a special share which shall be issued by the holding company. In the amendment I am proposing that the Minister shall not dispose of that special share. We have to ask ourselves — and I hope it will be stated clearly, categorically and unequivocally — whether it is legal under EC law for the State to insert in this legislation a provision for a special shareholding. If that is so and a guarantee can be given by the Minister to that effect, one would have to say, that perhaps the protection of the quota would to some extent be safeguarded in that the Minister cannot dispose of that share because it would be in the legislation. Whether or not it would be referred back to the Oireachtas is another matter. It is important that we are advised of what is contained in the memorandum and articles of association of the holding company because it is under those terms that a special share shall issue. If that is not embodied in the legislation how do we know what control the Minister can exercise? It is, therefore, very important that all that information be given to the House this evening.

It must also be stated clearly that the situation I talked about in the previous discussion will not come about, that a company which has a controlling share in a new company, Greencore, will in fact be a company with control of our sugar quota. What does the sugar quota mean to Ireland? It means that the production of sugar is guaranteed by EC law provided that we have a company that is prepared to manufacture sugar here. There is nothing to stop any company from importing sugar if they can do it at a cheaper rate than it is being made here. We export a certain amount of sugar from that seed quota, or we have done so in previous years, so what is to stop any company importing sugar? Therein lies the whole kernal of the issue, in this particular matter of the special share which the Minister, according to section 2 and the articles of and memorandum of association, will be holding. The question, therefore, is does that stand up under EC law? Is it legal and, if so, will it be written into this Bill that the Minister holding such share will not dispose of it, consequently giving some hope that the interest of the Irish sugar industry and of the people of Ireland will be protected under this new legislation?

All of the amendments, with the exception of amendment No. 3, are in my name. The purpose of these amendments is to put beyond any doubt what I undertook on Second Stage, namely, that the Minister for Agriculture and Food will not dispose of the special share or of any of the protections that fall from that special share. I indicated on Committee Stage that I would introduce an amendment to leave that beyond any doubt. To simplify matters, what I am effectively doing in these various amendments, because some are consequential amendments, is deleting the provision which, on the face of it, would enable the Minister to dispose of the share. Accordingly there is no right provided for in the legislation for the Minister for Agriculture and Food to dispose of the special share. The advice given to me by the Attorney General is that that is the best way to give effect to the intention we had, namely, to make it clear to the House that the protection of this special share was, from the Government's point, an integral and essential part of the legislation. I do not need to say why it was introduced originally. Incidentally, it was introduced on legal advice for what is called completeness. Now that we have made it clear to them that whatever completeness represents, we want to have clarity beyond yea or nay, it is coming before the House in this form. In any event I agreed in my consultations with the beet growers, the unions and the workers over a long period that provision should be made in the Bill that the special share would be there to protect these interests. Now I want to go a step further and make it clear that it cannot be disposed of.

Deputy Sherlock asked what was involved in the special share? First, we must ensure that none of the following consequences can arise without prior consent of the special shareholder, namely, the Minister for Agriculture and Food — incidentally, these will be enshrined in the articles of association of the company: any change in certain specified articles of association of the company — those that relate to control and direction — cannot be made without the consent in writing of the special shareholder, and thus, clearly something which we would all be most concerned about, the winding up of the company, cannot be done without the consent of the special shareholder; the sale of more than 49 per cent of Siúicre Éireann which, following the stock exchange flotation, will now be a subsidiary company of Greencore plc — in other words anything that would tend to give a controlling interest in Siúicre Éireann — cannot be achieved without such consent in writing.

What will be vested in Siúicre Éireann?

Siúicre Éireann as such will not hold shares in Greencore. I will confirm the precise position in a moment.

The disposal of specified sugar assets, including the Irish sugar quota, held by Siúicre Éireann cannot take place without the prior consent of the special shareholder. I do not need to tell the House the significance of the sugar quota. The quota which is distributed among member states of the European Community at guaranteed prices is a vital national asset and we do not intend to allow it to become a tradeable commodity in the market. That cannot be disposed of in any way without the consent in writing of the special shareholder. In addition, even the creation of a new class of shares in the company cannot be achieved without the consent in writing of the special shareholder. Finally — and I have mentioned this already as being part of the commitment and I touched on it in the course of the equity breakdown — the building up by one shareholder or a consortium or shareholders, other than the Minister for Finance, of more than a 15 per cent shareholding in the company after flotation, cannot be achieved without the consent in writing of the special shareholder. These points are dealt with in detail in the articles of association of Greencore. The House will appreciate that until such time as this legislation is passed those articles cannot be a legal binding document because they only take their authority from the legislation we are passing now. The articles it is intended to include are in draft and they are the articles to which I referred to Deputy Rabbitte.

Deputy Rabbitte asked what Siúicre Éireann will hold. On the establishment of the new company, Greencore, Siúicre Éireann will be a subsidiary of that company and will be controlled by it. The Minister's shares in Siúicre Éireann will be transferred to Greencore subject to all the conditions and regulations, I outlined during the last discussion on equity participation.

I do not know whether I can add anything to clarify the position beyond giving this formal public, deliberate, commitment on my own part and on the part of the Government, namely, that this special share is a crucial element in the Government's approach to this new arrangement not only by way of protection, which is very important, but also as the means to maintain a Government supervisory role — which is all we ever had — in the direction of a company that in its new formation will have new opportunities in the markets. For that reason it is not there to be a constraint; that would be to give the wrong impression, although constraints are built into it. It is there to demonstrate clearly that this Minister and all succeeding Ministers will be bound by the same terms. If down the line in ten, 20 or 30 years on, for one reason or another, another Government with another intention in respect of the protection of the special share want to put that different intention into practice, they will have to come back before the Oireachtas and ask them to get rid of that provision. The amendments I propose are in harmony with amendment No. 3 which has been proposed by Deputy Sherlock, and for that reason they should commend themselves to the House.

What guarantees can the Minister give that this special share will safeguard the future of the sugar quota? What has been the European experience, particularly in Britain and France where they have adopted this green share? Is it foolproof? Can it be overturned by a decision of the European Court and could the whole sugar industry be thrown into chaos because of a possible future decision of the European Court? Is there any danger of that happening and to what lengths has the Minister gone to placate the House and illustrate to us that this cannot happen?

I have taken the best legal advice available to us and that is, in the first instance, that it will protect the national quota. We asked that this would be framed in such a way as to guarantee that. So far as European law is concerned, I am advised that there is no objection to this provision provided it is not used in a discriminatory way so as to give an advantage to an interest in any member state over another. That, of course, is a principle of European law. If it was to be used to give a discriminatory advantage to Britain over Holland, Holland over Denmark or vice versa then, of course, in terms of competition law and the internal market they would say that this is not an acceptable application in harmony with European law. The best legal advice I have received, which is the term normally used, indicates that not only will this formula protect our quota but it will not discriminate against European laws. It is for this reason we asked for this formula.

Since my amendment was defeated, the golden share is the only means by which the national interest in the Sugar Company can be protected. The Government have indicated that they will not retain a majority shareholding in the company. In this event the protection of our national interest in the company will depend on the golden share. I am afraid I have to say that the points made by the Minister up to now have made me even more concerned about this issue. He said that the best legal advice he has received has indicated that everything will be safe. I am sure the British Government used the best legal advice available to them in the case of the Birmingham Six, and we know what happened in that case.

We will now have to depend on the golden share to ensure that our sugar quota is maintained and that the interests of the workers and growers and the national interest are protected. This is the first time the golden share is being tried here. This is being done at a time when evidence from across the water, where much of the thinking behind legislation brought before this House originates — I know this having been spokesman on Justice for the Labour Party for the past year and a half — has shown that the golden share has failed to protect the British Government's interests in particular companies and when Ministers changed, the thinking in regard to the golden share changed. This is of concern to me.

Deputy Deasy is now becoming concerned that our quota could be put in jeopardy. He asked the Minister to give an assurance that Community legislation, national legislation and the memorandum and articles of association to which the Minister so often refers will be sufficient to ensure that our national interest in the Sugar Company will be maintained. As Deputy Sherlock said, it is crucial that our quota is protected. Discussions are taking place on the GATT and the Common Agricultural Policy and changes will be made. Our quota could be changed in the discussions in which the Minister will be involved over the coming months. However, that is a slightly different matter. Can the Minister say if our 200,000 tonne quota will be maintained or if it may be changed in the discussions which will take place? In a European context, if a majority of countries go against the Minister's argument about the need to maintain our quota, will the quota be varied? I hope the Minister can answer that question. This issue is germane to the debate on the Bill before us today.

I referred earlier to the Single European Market, the markets which will be open to this country after 1992 and the competition we will face. The Minister has assured us that predators from outside the country will not be able to get their hands on the Sugar Company. If this is the case, then I do not know why there is a need for a European Court of Justice. When different countries disagree the case is usually sent to the European Court of Justice where generally the Community interest is put above the national interest in the final analysis. If it is felt that the golden share interferes with the Community interest the safeguards provided in this Bill and the memorandum and articles of association could be put at nought in a year's time if a case is taken to the court by independent companies who are interested in the sugar quota or taking shares in the Sugar Company. I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that this cannot happen. As has been seen in the case of British Telecom and companies in Britain, when other interests come into play the golden share can be varied. This means that the provision the Minister is including in the Bill might mean nothing.

I do not believe the golden share is all it is being held up to be by the Minister. It will only act as a very flimsy protection. There is no use harking back to a battle which has been lost, but I had provided for adequate protection in my amendment.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputies keep referring to the Fine Gael position as if we wanted to close the sugar factory in Carlow. I can assure the House that nothing could be further from the truth; we are very anxious to keep the factory open.

The Deputy is sure.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy Deasy did more than his share when decisions had to be made. The crucial decision for any Deputy is whether help should be given to a company in trouble.

I want to make it clear that the provision of the golden share has enabled me to accept the Bill as a whole.

I hope it keeps fine for the Deputy.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is very easy to predict doom and gloom. Hanrahan is dead years; he saw we were all going to be ruined. I sincerely hope the Deputies are not right about the doom and gloom. It is far easier to argue that everything will go wrong rather than say everything will go right.

This is Murphy's law.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Murphy law can apply and so can Kavanagh's law. It does not work out either.

There is a difficulty about our quota. Our 2 per cent quota is very small in a European context. As I said in my Second Stage speech, France would take this up if they could get their hands on it. It is very important that the quota system remains in place. Whether the company are semi-private or private there is a danger that the Minister might decide to get rid of the quota system and if that were to happen there would be a difficulty. You cannot have a sugar industry without beet. If the beet is grown in France it would be very difficult to swim across the Irish Sea, or up the river Shannon or the river Barrow, with beet in your mouth. If the EC ever decide to do away with the beet quota the Minister can swim towards some place else.

I will swim down the Seine or the Tiber.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister said he is quite satisfied from legal advice that the special share will protect the quote and so on as long as it does not conflict with the interests of some other nation. Can I take it that when the Minister says he has got legal advice he has got the best European legal advice? That is the one part of the Bill I would have difficulty with. Despite the protestations of other Deputies I am genuinely concerned about this Bill. Perhaps it is of more concern to me than to many other Deputies, a part from my colleague here and Deputy Sherlock. We come from areas that are very much involved in the growing of beet and the production of sugar.

I want to tease out this matter a little further. I repeat that it is improper to ask us to deal with this legislation when we cannot refer to the articles of association. The Minister said we cannot so refer because it is not a legally binding document until such time as this Bill is enacted. There must be a draft in existence that conforms to what the Minister expects will be the shape of the legislation when it comes through this process and it would be helpful if we could see that. I would like the Minister to explain how, as regards the ceiling of 15 per cent on any shareholder, collusion is prohibited? If the articles are available I would like the Minister to put on the record of the House the precise article that prevents that happening. In the normal cut and thrust of commercial life it is quite unclear as to how that would be feasible. If the Minister says it prohibits collusion then I take his word for it, but I would like to hear precisely the formula of words that has been devised to achieve that purpose.

Secondly, on the question of the inability to create new shares without the assent of the special shareholder, is the Minister referring to Siúicre Éireann or to the holding company in terms of the creation of new shares? The Minister said that if any Government in the future do not agree with this provision they reserve the right to come back to the Oireachtas to change it.

That is self-evident. It applies to any Government.

The point I want to put to the Minister is probably similarly self-evident, which is that no change is necessary. For example there is a 49 per cent ceiling on shares that may be held by Siúicre Éireann. If the Minister of the day decides to give his assent the matter would not require to be brought before this House. Is that not right? If a case is put to the Minister of the day on any of the prohibitions enshrined in the articles of association the Minister of the day, as the special shareholder, may decide on the merits of the case to give his assent, in which case there is no necessity to bring it before this House.

On the question of the efficacy of the golden share, the Minister is asking us to make an enormous act of faith in this critical regard — I agree with Deputy Browne that it is critical. The Minister said he takes on board the import of Deputy Sherlock's amendment, but I find it difficult to understand why that was not taken on board ab initio if, as he says, it is so critical. It would mean, for example, the excision of section 4 (2) (a) (iii) which provides that the Minister can dispose of the special share. I am curious to know the thinking behind that in the first instance.

The critical point is there is no finding, as I understand it, in European law that confirms the Minister's hopes, aspirations or affirmations in this regard. There have been cases where the efficacy of the golden share has been called into question — we referred to them during the earlier debate — but there has been no finding that would enable the Minister to answer Deputy Browne's question by saying: Yes, I can tell you this will not be found to be in breach of European competition law. That seems to leave a very big question mark over the entire venture in which we are engaged. As sure as Deputy Kavanagh has instanced, this will be challenged by some major company for their own corporate interest. In that context and especially in single market conditions I would like to be assured that the Minister has something stronger to go on than the opinion of the Attorney General, European lawyers and so on. This is a major concern.

I asked the Minister earlier if he would give us the examples of the issuing of such shares in companies in Britain and France where I believe this idea originated. How long has it been in operation?

The point raised specifically by Deputy Deasy covers the last point made by Deputy Rabbitte. While there are of course special shares of this type existing in other countries, the Commission has not on any occasion taken issue with these special shares or the provision of them. The Commission, being the custodians of the treaties and the law of the European Community, has indicated to us that it would not be its intention to raise the question of the compatibility of this with European law. That is the best guarantee we have been given. Deputy Rabbitte said that cases may arise but no such cases have arisen. I cannot speculate on what might happen in whatever circumstances at whatever time. The best guarantee in all of this is the guarantee of the res acta of what has been done, of the establishment law, of the attitude of the guardians of the treaty, namely, the Commission.

The Commission has not seen fit and do not propose to challenge the existence of special shares, and the indications are that it will not do so on this basis, subject to what I indicated to the House. The Commission would of course — we would hardly have to wait for it to tell us — challenge the operation of the special share or other reserved powers of any Government in regard to any legislation if it were operated in a discriminatory manner between member states, in a way that would not be consistent with the treaties of the European Community. We would hardly need the Commission to tell us that as soon as we would attempt to do that it would immediately activate its rights and obligations. Again I indicate there is no such intention and there is no reason that should happen in this case.

The special share protects the company from takeover and this is what we are really concerned about. I listened to the concerns expressed on Second Stage and — maybe unusually for a Minister — I decided that, in case there was a doubt in anyone's mind, in the House or outside it, I would bring in specific amendments to prevent the Minister for Agriculture and Food disposing of the special share. Because I did that it is a little disingenuous for the Deputy to labour the point.

That is a fair point.

If a Minister for Agriculture and Food were, at any time, to attempt to dispose of the special share and the powers that go with it, he would have to come back to this House to seek authority which does not exist at present. I never intended to have power to divest of something which I wanted to hold on to, put that way it seems contradictory, and I am now preventing myself — or a successor — from divesting himself of the special share. That is the only guarantee I can ever give in respect of the important element in this share.

Deputy Rabbitte addressed some other precise points. The new shares about which we are talking and the protection against new shares being created are in respect of the holding company. The holding company is new and everything we are doing here is in respect of regulating the conditions under which the holding company can operate without interfering directly in its business or management. We are putting a legislative framework at the base of the holding company and the new shares refer to shares in the holding company.

A point was made about a political decision in the European Community in relation to the quota. I wish to make two points in that regard; it is not for me to always represent the consistency of the European Community but it would be extraordinarily inconsistent of the European Community, which itself decided that it would allocate national quotas between member states, to collude in breaking down the basis of the decisions which it took or to say that Ireland is discriminating against member states because it will not allow the quota — allocated nationally by Council decision — by doing so. It would make no sense. The quota exists irrespective of whether this legislation is put through. It must be self-evident that the golden share can only protect the quota there at any one time. It does not mean that I can wave this legislation at the Commission or the Council of Ministers — I wish I could — and say that if there is any proposal to reduce the quota across the European Community Ireland's quota cannot be touched. Am I to say that they can touch the Greeks, the Danes, the Dutch, the Germans, the French and the Italians? It would be nonsensical to say that our quota could not be touched because I have a special share written into law. That would be nonsensical and I would have to rely on a more persuasive argument. There is no such proposal before us at this stage in the price negotiations, while there is a proposal to reduce the quota in the dairy sector, there is no proposal to reduce the quota in the sugar sector. There is a proposal to reduce the price by 5 per cent which I am consistently resisting because, quite clearly, the sugar regime is self-financing and there is no justification for reducing its price by 5 per cent. We will be arguing that for months.

Of course, I cannot guarantee that, at some stage, the Commission may not suggest that there should be a reduction in the price of food all round. However, I will fight that battle when it comes. I just want to make it clear to the House that the rights of the special share are not in any way diminished or enhanced by any decision in respect of quota reductions which might arise. If situations arise from time to time in other member states where Governments for their own reasons — and that is a matter for them — decide to take certain actions not to rely on the special share, that is their decision in respect of their companies. There may have been one exceptional case — Jaguar — where the British Government decided to waive their rights because they wanted to facilitate a takeover as the company were in financial trouble. However, that is another matter and it was done deliberately for that reason. I do not have any such intention. I do not mean just me personally because I have had equal experience on both sides of the House for over 25 years and I acknowledge that I was never satisfied when a Minister assured me of his intention in regard to any matter——

(Carlow-Kilkenny): None of us is.

I understand that Deputies feel like that and that the Minister's promises, no matter how well intended, are not enough. They must be enshrined in legislation and that is what I am doing. I cannot speculate as to what will happen in future but I am protecting the rights and, equally important, the obligation which attaches to the custodian and holder of the special share and I hope it will be a protection.

I raised the point with the Minister for the quota and the influence of the European Community in discussions on CAP and GATT and how the quota might be affected. I understand the Minister to say that the special share was a crucial element in the Government's protection of the quota and the Sugar Company.

The Minister has just said differently, he said he could not wave the document at the Commission but he also said that it is a crucial element——

I thought I made myself clear. The quota is allocated on a national basis to member states by Council decision. Our national quota resides with us and the nominee at this point is the Sugar Company. Nobody can take that quota from us. I never said — it would be foolish to say — that the quotas in Europe cannot be proportionately reduced. How could I say that?

I am just quoting what the Minister said.

The Deputy misinterpreted my remarks. Obviously my hope is that the quotas will stay as they are and I will fight to resist any reduction. The Commission is proposing a 2 per cent reduction in milk quotas at present which I am resisting. It is not proposing a reduction in the sugar quota but I could not guarantee that the Commission will never propose a reduction in respect of commodities.

My fear is not the protection of the quota from outside. Because of the system within the EC we are entitled to a sugar quota and I am concerned about the protection of the quota from inside our own country. A new holding company is now being set up in which the Irish Sugar Company, as the Minister said, will be only a subsidiary as in the case of Greenvale plc. Smaller divisions within the Irish Sugar Company are also subsidiaries. The Minister did not deal with the supposed ban on collusion between the groups of people who would have the majority shareholding in that holding company. Therefore, what is contained in the articles of association to indicate that that position is strengthened? Will the Minister clarify that?

I am equally satisfied that the special share poses the same obligations in respect of any domestic control, collusion or otherwise, as it does in respect of any control consortium that would arise between national and extra-national interests. Of course it must, and it does, otherwise it would discriminate in any event. I take Deputy Sherlock's point. This was not framed just against any would-be invaders exclusively from outside the territory of this green island, far from it. This is there to protect against any collusion or takeover in respect of the basic share of the company. That is why it is there. I am not dismissing the possibility that somewhere along the line someone, internally or otherwise, would put his eye on the special share.

Let us look at the facts. We know the sugar operations are the core of this company and their great asset at the moment, before, as it is hoped, they launch into new ventures. Let us face it, they have been a one-product company. They had the sugar operation, then Erin Foods and then Tuam Engineering, but not the diversity we would all like to see involved in a whole range of activities in that area. The core is the sugar operation and no doubt as a result of the substantial restructuring and capital investment this is what will generate the substantial profits. I believe they can generate much more profit than they have done. It is not for me; I am not managing director nor have I any designs on so being, but the whole range of issues, product development and market penetration in areas where the Sugar Company have not been involved can now be achieved and I want to see that. I think Deputy Sherlock from his own experience will have some ideas in that direction too. I want to see that core asset, without which they can do none of these things, being developed. I have no doubt also that with the substantial profits that can be developed potential shareholders will view the profits of the sugar operations particularly as a major benefit, especially as they would generate a strong cash flow which could be used to strengthen the overall company. We are simply creating an opportunity to use this core to develop the assets of the company and secure the interests of the employees and, for that matter, the growers. That is why the quota I am protecting in this special share is the key to everything.

I want to make a relatively minor point. The Minister did not reply to a question I put to him about existing shareholders in the present Sugar Company. Most of us would have assumed that the Minister for Finance was the sole shareholder in the company, but I understand that is not the case, that there are a number of other shareholders, that their shareholding does not come to anything considerable but nevertheless they exist. What percentage have those people overall? I want to know the number of shares the Minister has, the number of shares these people have and what becomes of the shares these people have.

There are £500,000 in preference shares in the first instance in the existing company and these are held by various shareholders. The intention is to make an attractive offer to these shareholders for their shares. That is the extent of the shareholding this minute. With a view to gathering in those areas the intention is to make an attractive offer so that we can then have a greater degree of control of the centre.

What percentage do they form of the total?

They are preference shares only. You cannot compare preference shareholdings to ordinary shareholdings, but for what it is worth I am told if £66 million or thereabouts is the ordinary shareholding we are talking about less than 1 per cent.

On the next point which has been referred to a few times, I want to leave no loose threads hanging as far as the articles of association and the 15 per cent limit are concerned. All I can say here is there are detailed provisions in the draft articles of association, extending over five pages, relating to the 15 per cent limit. If Deputies do not have their copies of this draft, though there is no precedent for bringing in a document which has no legal effect at this point, I have no reservations about getting a copy of such draft as is there available for Deputies' perusal on the basis that it has no binding legal effect at this stage. Perhaps it will enable Deputies to see the provisions that are there. I have perused it and I can assure Deputies there are some very detailed provisions in it.

In regard to a point Deputy Sherlock raised, I have been informed that the reference he made to Greenvale plc is inaccurate. Greenvale is not a subsidiary of the company. "Greenvale" is a brand name and is used in the Sugar Company animal feed division. It is not a company at all.

You would want to——

The Greenvale already registered is a different entity altogether. "Greenvale" as used by the company is just a brand name and not a registered company.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I can verify the point about Greenvale because I know the person involved. On thing has puzzled me, perhaps because I did not listen properly to the Minister. If the golden share is 5 per cent——

No, the golden share is just one share.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Whatever it represents is there any danger with monopolies legislation that somebody could ask how this kind of thing can be justified? In the past, Ministers obviously had to have power but this is a new Bill permitting people to buy shares and buy into the company. Could the Minister be accused of giving himself power beyond which he could give?

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I hope not, but I am asking.

It is not just a matter of hope in my case, though I appreciate the Deputy's analysis all along in this debate. All the inquiries we have made, all the research we have done, all the advice we have confirm that there is no risk.

We have discussed amendment No. 3 and the other amendments are related. How, Sir, do you intend to dispose of the amendments? Even though they have probably been discussed there is need for clarification. Do you take each one separately?

I understand it was agreed that amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20 and 21 were to be taken together and discussed together.

We have done that. We have been doing that all the time.

We have, but what we have discussed is amendment No. 3 and the special share.

The same provisions are for all the others, Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20 and 21. They all relate to the special share.

The Minister's amendment No. 9 reads:

In page 3, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:

"(1) The Minister for Agriculture and Food shall not dispose of the special share referred to in subsection (2) of this section.".

The amendment I propose reads:

"Shares shall not be disposed of by the Minister for Agriculture and Food or his nominee, nor shall it be so used as to diminish the said Minister's legal or equitable holding within the Holding Company.".

We are both moving for the same effect but the advice from the Attorney General is that it is preferable to provide separately at the end of the section that the special share may not be sold. That is why I am proposing amendment No. 9. The purpose of the Deputy's amendment after "nominee" is not clear because we are not talking about ordinary equity shareholding but about a share that resides only in the Minister for Agriculture and Food and there is no question of a nominee in respect of this share. With regard to ordinary shares the Minister could have a nominee just like everybody else. I will not have a legal or equitable holding in that sense within the holding company other than the special share which we are now protecting in the Bill. The advice to me is that I am doing it in the right way.

I thank the Minister for clarifying that. Will the Minister clarify the position with regard to amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21?

The Deputy's proposal to delete subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) would not just affect the special share. I do not know whether or not that was the Deputy's intention. The effect of the Deputy's amendment is that the Minister for Finance would not be able to dispose of the shares which he will acquire in the new holding company. We dealt with that issue earlier. Here we are dealing with the special share and the rights and obligations that go with it. I indicated that the Minister for Finance will acquire up to 45 per cent in shares. Deputy Kavanagh said that he would like to see that frozen in granite. I said I would not see it frozen in aspic. For that reason the Deputy's amendment here is unacceptable although I understand what the Deputy is trying to get at. The Deputy does not have the benefit of draftsmen and officials to work on it. His amendment is not relevant to the section.

Which amendment is the Minister talking about?

I am not saying that it is not worthy of argument; I am saying it is not relevant to the special share. I am talking about amendment No. 19, Deputy Sherlock's amendment.

Should we be discussing amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 at this stage?

Only because they were brought in by Deputy Sherlock in the context of his amendment No. 3 in relation to the special share. I have given the reasons why I cannot accept the amendment.

Two of those amendments are in the name of the Minister.

They are, but the Deputy asked me to elaborate on amendment No. 19. My amendments are perfectly consistent. I am not making a special virtue of that. They relate exclusively and specifically to the special share.

Section 4 (2) reads:

(2) The following provisions shall apply and have effect in respect of all shares of the Holding Company which are for the time being standing in the name of a nominee for the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture and Food.

I see the point. The Deputy will appreciate that that refers to ordinary shares. I can understand why the Deputy when he saw the words "nominee" and "all shares" was misled, but they refer to ordinary shares and not to the special share which is referred to separately.

I am not satisfied at all.

Perhaps I can clarify the matter. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 in my name will ensure that a nominee cannot sell the special share. That possibility should never have been there but it was. It is being deleted, because I must be consistent in my argument and in my conclusions.

Amendment No. 19 has the same effect, in that case. I accept that the Minister's amendments Nos. 20 and 21 will have the effect that the Minister says they will but I want to have amendment No. 19 accepted.

"All or any of the said shares" extends beyond the special share and that is why I cannot accept that.

Would it not be consistent to put in, "with the exception of the special share" or something like that?

The legal advice to us is to do this in the way we have. Deputies will appreciate that if we started to take on the role of draftsman on a technical matter like this, we would get bogged down.

According to the Minister's amendment No. 9 the Minister for Agriculture and Food shall not dispose of the special share referred to in subsection (2). A special share is being provided for in section 2 (2) and is subject to the memorandum and articles of association of the holding company. I wonder if on Report Stage the Minister will agree to write in what is contained in the articles of association which gives effect to the special shareholding on which such emphasis is now being placed, and which is accepted by the Minister.

I have made it clear that if I was to introduce in this enabling legislation all the details that are in the articles of association, this Bill and others like it, would be unduly and unnecessarily complicated. I have outlined specifically here today the purpose of the special share. Its purpose is very clear and I cannot and will not walk away from that. It is not a matter of opinion. The provisions to which I have referred today are included in the articles of association. I think that should be enough and I cannot incorporate all of these things into them.

The Minister has simply said that that should be enough——

Legally, that should be enough.

——but it is not enough.

The debate hinges on this point. Everybody realises that the special shareholding forms a vitally important part of the legislation. If the sugar quota could be protected by this shareholding we should have confidence and he could reassure us by making special provision in the articles of association. We do not want all of these written in but I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that a provision relating to the special share should be included.

I have nothing further to add to what I have said. If I have not convinced the House at this point, I do not suppose I will.

I am putting the question: That the amendment be made."

I think the question is lost.

The question is: "That the amendment be made." Will the Members claiming a division please rise in their places?

Deputies De Rossa, Mac Giolla, Sherlock, McCartan, Rabbitte, Gilmore and Byrne rose.

As fewer than ten Members have risen in their places I declare the question defeated. The names of the Deputies who claimed a division will be recorded in the Journal of the proceedings.

Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No.4:

In page 2, lines 30 to 37, to delete subsection (3).

Section 2 (3) states:

The Minister, or his nominees, may hold for as long as he thinks fit shares in the Holding Company for the time being vested in him or his nominees and may, from time to time, if he considers it appropriate to do so following consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Food, sell, exchange or dispose of, whether by redemption or otherwise, on such terms and conditions, including preferential terms and condition, as he thinks fit, all or any of such shares.

There should be no quibble about deleting the subsection which gives power to the Minister to dispose of such shares.

I have dealt with this issue in the course of the debate. All these matters were debated together. I have nothing to add.

We took together amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20 and 21. We did not include amendment No. 4.

This point arose in the course of the debate on the last section. I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.

We will certainly be supporting this amendment providing for the deletion of the subsection. There is the question of how shares are to be disposed of to the private sector, the method which is to be used and the prospectus which will be published. Does the Minister intend to hand this operation to one of the private companies who generally deal with the private sector in the disposing of shares in new or existing companies? They take pages in the newspapers setting out the details. Are we entitled to discuss this matter at this stage? I seek some assurances from the Minister.

The matter of flotation is not appropriate for legislation. It is a matter for the company on the basis of the best consultancy advice they can get. It is not appropriate to include it in legislation.

We will not be opposing this subsection; therefore we will not be supporting the amendment. The company should not be hamstrung if they wish to raise additional funds for the acquisition of suitable companies. It would be very retrograde to tie the hands of the company by maintaining a hard line as regards the 45 per cent holding which the Minister will initially retain.

I agree with Deputy Deasy. It is very unrealistic that we should insist on the Minister holding his 45 per cent shareholding in future years. If we are realistic we must recognise that gradually we will move to a position where the Minister's shareholding will almost certainly fall short of 45 per cent. There is no point in trying to gloss over that fact. This provision should remain in the Bill so that the Minister and his successors will be able to ensure that extra investment can be made.

Consistent with my opposition to the whole purpose of this Bill and my opposition to section 2, I am very pleased to support this amendment.

I will not drag out the debate on this amendment. I am surprised and concerned that the Minister will not give some detail about the mechanism of the flotation and that we cannot discuss it at this stage. The Government of which I was a member had to make very tough decisions to slim down this company and make it profitable. In the past four years it has moved from being a loss-making venture to being a very profitable company. I know the flotation will be a success and it is important to know the method by which the shares will be sold off. We must ensure that nobody will make a killing by buying in one day and selling the next, as has happened in Britain. The Minister should at least comment on that concern.

There is no question of anything being done other than in the most public way. There will be no question of any attempt to conceal what is being done from the public or the institutions or any interested parties. Everything will be done publicly. My understanding is that it will be advertised widely in the newspapers but I am not prepared to state here that this is the only way it may be notified or advertised. Regarding comments about the Minister's holding 45 per cent, let me assure the House that the Minister for Finance might within months dispose of his shareholding. Senator Bradford mentioned this and did not object to the possibility. Let me assure the House that the institutions who would be interested in acquiring shares would not expect or even wish that the Minister would dispose of his shareholding within months of the flotation. As I indicated already to the House when we discussed this matter earlier, it is the intention of the Minister for Finance — as distinct from the Minister for Agriculture and Food, who has the special share — to issue a statement to accompany the prospectus which will say that he does not intend to dispose of any shareholding within two years. On that basis the matter is quite public and clear, and with regard to the acquisition of other shares, the matter will be advertised fully in the national newspapers.

I am not surprised that Deputy Deasy is not supporting this amendment because he wants to retain this section in the Bill. He has made it very clear that he is in favour of full privatisation of the Sugar Company, and putting no restrictions whatsoever on them in the free market. However, I am amazed that the Minister whom I heard today proudly boast that he has never used the word "privatisation" and that his purpose is not the privatisation of the Sugar Company and that he certainly does not intend to privatise the Sugar Company. He made this point very clearly today, but I could not follow his argument because he is privatising the major part of it, but this section means full privatisation.

That is not so.

We will have a guarantee from the Minister for Finance that the shareholding will not be sold within two years, if the Minister is still there in two years, but after two years the remainder of the company will be privatised. It will be privatised with the exception of the Minister for Agriculture and Food's golden share. All the rest will go. That is full privatisation and it goes in the face of everything the Minister said all day long today. In view of what the Minister has said, that it is not his intention to fully privatise the Sugar Company, I cannot understand why the Minister still retains this section where the Minister for Finance could dispose of all the remaining shares after a period of two years, or in fact immediately if there is a change in the Minister for Finance. This is the Minister for Finance's intention at present but we do not know what would be the intention of the next Minister for Finance. After two years you have full privatisation. The Minister for Agriculture and Food hangs on to his golden share but we do not know how long that will last. The Minister could bring the matter before the House and he would certainly have the full suport of the Fine Gael Party to dispose of it.

I think this section will mean the full privatisation of the Sugar Company. I understood that was what the Minister intended at the beginning but the Minister has said all day today that it was not his intention at all but that the Minister for Finance was retaining 45 per cent and therefore we should not be worried about the privatisation of the Sugar Company. On Second Stage I pointed out the dangers for growers and workers in the event of full privatisation without restrictions in terms of the free market and the importation of sugar. They could do anything they wished to do as long as they made a profit, which is the purpose of the free market. Whether it would interfere with growers or ended the guarantees to the growers or workers would not matter once the company was making a profit and was not a burden on the State. In fact there is hardly a private company in the country that is not a burden on the State. Everyone of them are getting far more in terms of grants and tax breaks than all the semi-State companies have ever got.

That is a terrible accusation against good, hardworking people.

It is not an accusation, it is a fact as the Minister knows well. Every Minister in this House knows there are grants and tax breaks going to every private company and the public and semi-State companies do not get tax breaks, they get handouts from the State.

Over £80 million has gone into the Sugar Company.

They get handouts from the State which are public knowledge and are acknowledged but we do not see any record of the amounts in tax breaks and grants that are given to private companies. I am making the point that the Minister will not save money by privatising the company and this will clearly involve full privatisation of the Sugar Company. This company has been a tremendous benefit to growers, workers and the economy and are now in a position to repay any Government grants which they got in the past. In fact they could be repaying the £50 million which they had got from the State and this would be of benefit to the Exchequer. I am dealing specifically with this amendment, which I thought the Minister would accept in view of the points he made in the debate this morning and this afternoon. I had hoped he would accept the amendment and delete the section because this would be in accord with what he has been saying.

We started this debate at 10.30 this morning, which is eight hours ago, and Deputy Mac Giolla chooses to come in eight hours later——

I have been listening all morning and we had two Members here all day.

——and for his own purposes he rehashes some of the points that his absent Workers Party colleague Deputy Rabbitte made earlier. For that reason, I have nothing to add to what I said hours ago to Deputy Rabbitte.

I sincerely hope the Minister does not take umbrage with Deputies coming in here as we are elected and entitled to do and make contributions——

Not if they have something new to say.

——at any time. We still preserve our democratic right to come in and contribute in this House. Given the great technological advances in recent times we can actually follow the debates in our offices and do other work as well.

I am a little surprised at the coyness of the Minister in regard to the object of the Bill. I thought his party, and certainly his partners in Government and the main Opposition party are all quite clear in their ambition to privatise this company and others. I did not think it was a matter of trying to do it in any surreptitious way. I thought it was quite public and open that this is now their policy and that they wanted to privatise this company, which is one of a list of companies which they had earmarked to bring revenue into the Government coffers this year to soften the effects of the Exchequer borrowing requirement by the end of the year,

I wish to pursue slightly further the points raised by my colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, on the actual mechanism of privatisation. Will the Minister give us some indication at least as to how he will arrive at the share price for the company.

Deputy, we are not on the section, we are on a specific amendment.

My colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, referred to it and the Minister replied in relation to the mechanism for flotation but he was reluctant at that stage to give details of the mechanism and he said it was inappropriate. I am trying to get as much information as I can from the Minister. If the Minister is going to privatise the company, which is clearly the case, as he has the overwhelming support of the Members of this House, both Fine Gael and the members of both parties in Government, will the Minister give us an assurance that at least the taxpayer is going to get value for money and that it will not be, as we have seen so vividly across the water a bonanza for private investors. What mechanism will the Minister use to protect the rights of the State and individual taxpayers to get the best value out of the flotation. Could the Minister give us an indication of the advice he has got or what committees he has put in place to advise him on the share valuation. Can the Minister give us any information as to how he will arrive at a share price for this company?

Subsection 3 refers to the Minister or his nominee and the matter of shares he may hold; he does not refer to how he may acquire them.

It may refer to how he disposes of them. There may be a situation later, but it is not appropriate on this amendment that the Minister should now even presume to assure the House on the modus operandi for this.

I understand that the Minister may sell, exchange or dispose of the shares but we are discussing the mechanism he is going to use in accordance with section 3 to sell, exchange, or dispose of the shares to ensure that the taxpayers, who, although it is vested in the Minister for Finance, are currently the holders, get value for money.

I have also dealt with this matter hours ago before Deputy Howlin arrived and I do not feel I should be asked to repeat myself at this point, particularly when it is not relevant. I did say long ago this matter would be advertised publicly, that it would be open to all concerned to apply for shares. I also said — and I will finish on this note — that I would not now, and could not now place a valuation on the shares in advance. I went through all of that hours ago.

I had a discussion with my colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, who has been here since morning, and I understand from other Deputies that the specific question I asked in relation to the mechanism for valuing the shares has not been made clear. I understand the Minister will advertise. What mechanism will be put in place to value the shares and how is the Minister going to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer in this regard? It is a simple, straightforward question. Is the Minister afraid to answer it; and could he do that without insulting Deputies?

In regard to what the Minister may do and what he may not do, the Government and the Minister are subject to the same conditions and restrictions as every other Member. I do not see how, in respect of this particular amendment, it would be in order for the Minister to indicate the details which the Deputy is seeking. It is not provided for there.

I think this is where, perhaps, the Minister should look for a break because he now seems to be bereft of any ideas of what will happen in the future. We are talking about the interests of the sugar industry and the employees and the growers. What does appear to have happened, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is that a Bill was drafted by the people who were qualified to do so but all they had in mind was to draft a Bill for the privatisation of the Sugar Company and to try to keep out of that Bill what would be regarded as contentious matters that might be raised in this case by left wing parties who are speaking in the interests in the sugar industry, the growers and the workers. That is the situation. Even the Minister alluded to that, inadvertently I would say. In drafting the legislation they wanted to create this impression. This section, which I am seeking to delete by amendment, refers to the Minister or his nominees. When I was speaking previously nominees did not enter into it but now the nominees can become part of the structure. The Minister may, for as long as he thinks fit, hold shares in the holding company. The Minister said, within the last half an hour, that 45 per cent of the shares in that holding company would be held by the Minister for Agriculture and Food.

Deputy Sherlock, would you bear with me? If the Deputy looks at section 1 he will see that under definitions there the Minister does not mean the Minister for Agriculture and Food.

The Minister for Finance. I stand corrected.

The question that I thought was being put to this Minister was how he was going to dispose of his shares.

He represents the Government and he has an obligation to tell us exactly what is envisaged in this subsection. If the Minister so decides, how does he propose to do it? What could happen is what we contend will happen, that the Sugar Company will be totally privatised within a short period of time and all that is being asked——

And somebody else will make a killing.

That is right, and that is exactly what this is about.

If the Minister cannot answer, bring in the Minister for Finance and let him answer it.

It is clear that the Deputies here — the Labour Deputies can take their own view — want to give an impression, which they have been doing all day, that this company will be totally privatised.

And you are trying to give the impression that it is not.

A Cheann Comhairle, I actually made it very clear that the Government had decided very definitely and deliberately against total privatisation. I said it very constantly here and I will not in any sense be misrepresented by the Deputies who have lately arrived after eight hours in an attempt to give the same impression as those who departed some hours ago attempted to give.

We cannot answer insult.

The Deputy knows that that is the reality. I will not be led down the track by any specious argument nor into generalisation again. Everybody will have an opportunity of acquiring these shares, small investors, institutions and so on, with one exception. Certain people will be given special preference, namely, the workers and the beet growers. I have said this so often today.

What about the workers who were made redundant?

We will look at those who were made redundant as well. I have said that so often today but it is news to those who have now arrived and it is perhaps as well they heard it. I have no more to say on it.

I must intervene here. The Minister is making constant references to Deputies who have just come into the House. Do you think we are supposed to stay out and let you do what you like. We have every right to come into this House at any time.

You were asking the same questions that were asked eight hours ago.

I was listening to the Minister all day long and I am sick listening because you are saying the same things. It is unbelievable that the Minister now gets up and says again that neither he nor his Government have any intention of privatising the Sugar Company. The duplicity of it is so sickening. Why can the Minister not be straight and honest like Deputy Deasy. Be straight and honest. The Minister is privatising the company. He should not keep up this hypocrisy that he is not when this section says that in two years the whole lot will be gone except his measly golden share. How long will he hold that?

That is not true. If the Deputy is going to say something, let him say it.

That is what the Minister said. I was listening to him here; otherwise I was listening to the Minister in my office. I was listening to him when he said, on behalf of the Minister for Finance this time who holds the 45 per cent of the shares, that he would not sell them for two years. I have not heard the Minister for Finance coming in here and giving us that guarantee, but the Minister for Agriculture and Food says that he will not.

That will be in the prospectus. I said this hours ago. That prospectus will be issued when the company is floated. There will be a statement to that effect by the Minister for Finance in the prospectus. The Deputy obviously did not hear that because he was not present to hear it and I will not allow him now to distort it.

The Minister is constantly repeating this story. Every Deputy in this House knows that you mostly listen to what happens in this House from your offices, if you listen at all, as every other Deputy does. You know that. Why do you constantly make these references that I was not listening to you. I was listening to you all day long until I was sick in the face listening to you.

(Interruptions.)

I am listening to you now and looking at your face and you are saying——

Deputy Mac Giolla, maybe——

You are not giving me the protection of the Chair against these allegations of the Minister.

I was about to suggest that if you directed your words and your voice and your face to the Chair you would get a more receptive reaction than you are getting by directing it elsewhere.

I am addressing my remarks to you now and I am asking you if the Minister is correct in constantly repeating that I was not here and that I have no right to come in now making remarks on this Bill. Is that what he is saying? Is that correct?

The Chair's suggestion is that you do not have to react to that. You are entitled, as you know, to make your contribution. It is only in so far as you react to it that you are giving it the significance to which you object.

If you will forgive me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I have every right to react to it and I am reacting to it.

The headline tomorrow is "Deputy arrives after eight hours".

That is what you would love but the real headline tomorrow will be that the Minister is not privatising the Sugar Company, he is just giving it away to some private company. The Minister's 45 per cent will go in two years. That is what this section means and, apparently, it will not happen for two years. This means that the remainder can be sold and Deputy Deasy is quite happy with that because he knows it is privatisation.

He is a more reasonable man.

But the Minister gets up and says hypocritically that this is not privatisation and that the Government made a very specific decision. If the Government made that decision then the Minister is going against their decision by allowing this section to stand. This section means that after two years the company will be completely privatised. Through the provisions of this Bill it will be slightly more than half privatised but if we allow this section to stand full privatisation can take place. That is our main argument. This is the reason I cannot understand the Minister's hypocrisy in saying that it does not mean privatisation. He should get up and say "yes, we are privatising the Sugar Company, I will hold a little golden share and that is it".

Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is offering.

How long has he been here? He is now allowed to speak.

I am one of those who has been here for eight hours.

I am a little surprised at the outburst.

The Deputy is only appearing now.

I have been here for eight or ten years in the House, the same length of time as the Deputy, and I have been as successful as the Deputy.

The Deputy did not know his way in.

I am rather taken aback by the discussion which is taking place because this Bill has been widely welcomed by the institutional investors, the growers and the company.

The Deputy did not mention the workers.

We are well aware that grower meetings have taken place throughout the country. The workers in Mallow are very happy with its provisions and I am sure the Deputy will accept his allocation of shares when they are allocated to him. The Deputy is a former worker and he will qualify for some shares. I take it that the Deputy will purchase them at the discounted rate.

A Deputy

He will get the redundancy shares.

The Deputy will have enough on his hands with Dairygold.

The Deputy did not do much for the milk trade when it was in trouble. We can debate that on another day, if the Deputy wishes.

Please yourself, Deputy.

I have no problem; I dealt with the Deputy before and I will deal with him again.

I will be the referee.

The 45 per cent being held by the Government is welcome and it is right that it should be held by them. In the long term I do not expect it to continue and, eventually, we will see full privatisation of the Sugar Company. The 55 per cent is a welcome development because we are all aware of the difficulties experienced by the company over the years when they were starved for capital. As I stated in the House recently they will gain access to the market and if they have new enterprises they will have no problem in securing funding because people have confidence in the company. The way to proceed is through the stock market and that is the trend throughout the western world today. Anybody who talks about being opposed to privatisation is taking a backward step. There is no doubt that if one wants growth in business one must have access to the market for capital and the market is the Stock Exchange. That is the way forward.

There are one or two points I would like to raise. First, the Minister seems to have given the impression to the newcomers to the Chamber that we had discussed the sale and distribution of the company at an earlier point. The point I was raising was how we would do that and I thought this was the appropriate section on which to raise it.

We must discuss the amendment before we move to the section.

The amendment seeks to delete the section.

The amendment refers to deleting subsection (3) not the section, which refers to the holding which the Minister for Finance may have and how he may dispose of it.

I have the greatest respect for your judgment in these matters but when we are discussing an amendment which seeks to delete a section that refers to selling, exchange or disposing of shares, we are entitled to debate the section. I thought I was in order until you did not allow me get word from the Minister as to how he intends to do this and what the benefit will be to the general public. If we delete this subsection you will tell me when we come to the section, that that subsection has been deleted and that I cannot speak on it. That is the reason I want a ruling at this stage.

The Deputy is only assuming that the amendment will be carried.

You are assuming that it will not.

It is only in those circumstances he would be prevented and even so he would be at liberty in speaking on the section to express his loneliness for something that had disappeared, if that happens.

It is a bit late then.

Deputy Kavanagh is usually in order and is in order now to proceed but not to stray too far.

I am sorry but you have not clarified the position clearly. I think I am still in order in talking about the privatisation or otherwise of the company. Under this subsection the Minister will sell off shares and we are trying to prevent him doing that. Therefore, we are proposing an amendment. I thought I had put down an amendment but, apparently, I have not but I agree with what the amendment before us is trying to achieve.

I do not think the Minister can argue that there is something less than part-privatisation or whole privatisation involved. It is privatisation because we have learned from the Minister, after many long hours of teasing out, that this 45 per cent is not a solid figure which he will hold on to. It will be reduced whether to 30 per cent of whatever; it can be reduced to nil if the Minister for Finance so desires or if the privatisation goes so well and other interests come in. The Minister said earlier if a company has to be bought which would be of benefit, then the method used would be to sell off part of the 45 per cent. This is the reason the Minister was wrong in not agreeing with Deputy Deasy and saying, we are going to privatise the Sugar Company. The chief executive of the company, Mr. Comerford, as far back as 1989, when he was interviewed in Aspect magazine, in a question and answer session, said he was on record as having said that the company could operate much better in private hands. He was referring to the closure of the Thurles sugar factory when interviewed by Aspect magazine.

I have paid tribute to the skills of Mr. Comerford in directing this company through a very difficult time and bringing them to profitability but he is on record as saying that the company would be much better in private hands. The Minister is saying the Government have made a decision and we will not be privy to that for another 30 years but, perhaps, the Minister will bring it in and show it to us. He said the decision was that the 45 per cent will not be reduced below that level. We cannot be sure it will be contained in the prospectus or memorandum and articles of association which is being offered to us. I would have thought I was in order in discussing the method of flotation and the level that will be cast when the company goes public so that we could have some knowledge of the guarantees and safeguards the Minister will bring in to ensure the public will have a right to buy whatever shares they wish and that the best price will be obtained for the shares. That was my concern and the point I was trying to make in the discussion.

As long ago as 25 October 1990 in a press release issued on behalf of the Government the Government's decision for partial privatisation was announced. The decision which I am authorised to bring before this House by means of this legislation is the decision for partial privatisation. I do not want to get into further arguments. I have given the reasons today. For people to say that it is this or that which it is not is just flying in the face of the Government decision on which this legislation is based.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share