Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1991

Vol. 406 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Sugar Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 4:

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

—(Joe Sherlock.)

Mr. Sherlock

In the course of the Minister's reply on this amendment and from this side of the House reference has been made to the amount of capital which the State has put into the company since the early eighties and various figures have been given. The fact that it has done so and the company is now in a profit-making situation is all the more reason the company should be retained in public ownership. My amendment proposes the deletion of subsection (3) which allows the Minister, or his nominee, to dispose of the shares. It is important that I give an example of the interest we are talking about in the Sugar Company. In 1989 and in 1990 we were told — and there is no secret about it — that the Finnish sugar company were interested in the Irish Sugar Company. Finn Sugar Limited issued a statement to the effect that while their interest was indicated in general terms to the Minister for Agriculture — it is the same Minister for Agriculture and Food who is here this evening — they were an established public company with interests in over 60 countries. It is a pity the Minister for Agriculture and Food is not present now. The information leaked to the workforce in Mallow, Carlow and all the other areas at the time that this company were likely to buy the Irish Sugar Company. If the Bill is passed and the company is privatised this amendment which proposes the deletion of subsection (3) of section 2 would not allow the Minister to dispose of his shares. This is a very wide-ranging power contained in subsection (3) which 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 conditions, as he thinks fit ...

I think it is reasonable, in view of the emphasis being placed by the Minister on the fact that the Minister will have 45 per cent of the shares, that at least he would not have the power to dispose of such shares. I refer to the next subsection to prove the point I am making. The next subsection would give the Minister the power to dispose of the special share which has been referred to.

Mr. Kavanagh

That subsection is being deleted.

Mr. Sherlock

I know the Minister is proposing to delete that subsection but the fact is that it was put into the Bill. Had there been no opposition that subsection would still be part of the Bill. That is why it is necessary to argue out the terms and conditions, the amendments, the sections and subsection of the Bill to the point where we will have at the end of the day, if it is passed, a Bill which will protect the interests of the growers and the industry generally. The deletion of subsection (3) would satisfy me. I think I have made points which are sufficiently valid to get agreement on that.

Mr. Kavanagh

Before the break for Private Members' Business I gave my reasons for supporting Deputy Sherlock's amendment. I thought I had a similar amendment but it did not appear on the green paper. In any event, for the reasons which I gave earlier, I intend to ask for the deletion of this subsection.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 108; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Belton, Louis J.
• 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.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Davern, Noel.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Ellis, John.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Stafford, John.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Byrne, Eric.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• 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.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies McCartan and Byrne.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 5 was discussed earlier with amendment No. 3. What is the position with this amendment?

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, lines 1 to 5, to delete subsection (4).

As I understand it the other amendments in my name are consequential on amendment No. 5. We have already debated this issue. The House will be aware that the purpose of this amendment is to put a specific provision in the Bill preventing the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the office I hold at present, from disposing of the special share because of the special provisions which attach to that share protecting the rights of workers and the core asset of the company, namely, the sugar quota, as well as a range of other matters that I have already explained in detail.

I agreed after Second Stage, in response to some observations made from all sides of the House, to introduce this amendment so that there would be no doubt that it was not my intention to dispose of the special share. I am now inserting this amendment, with the other amendments which state that the Minister for Agriculture and Food shall not dispose of the special share referred to in subsection (2) of this section. That is not just a statement of intention; it is a mandatory obligation. The other amendments in my name follow directly from that.

Mr. Kavanagh

This amendment is not simply in the Minister's name; it is also in Deputy Sherlock's and mine. We put down this amendment which is consequential on an earlier amendment in my name. If that amendment had been successful there would have been no need for this amendment, but obviously that was not the case. I welcome the Minister's assurance that he cannot dispose of the special share. We expressed our reservations in this regard. This amendment is a consequence of the discussions we had. Obviously the Minister discussed the matter after the Bill was printed and saw the weakness in this area. Even though it is only a concession, this amendment is welcome.

Mr. Sherlock

In proposing this amendment I gave consideration to the meaning of the subsection. Subsection (4) is of great concern. It reads:

The Minister for Agriculture and Food or his nominees following consultation with the Minister may, if he considers it appropriate to do so, dispose of by redemption or otherwise, in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association of the Holding Company the special share referred to in subsection (2) of this section.

Again the memorandum and articles of association of the holding company are referred to. The Minister has now agreed to delete that and we accept it but in drafting the Bill, reference is made again to the memorandum and articles of association. It is in accordance with that that the special share referred to is being given to the Minister. We are still at a loss to know what back up there will be for that special share. This amendment calls for the deletion of that subsection and we support it. I would like the Minister to briefly say what he proposes to do about informing us on the memorandum and articles of association.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I have indicated already that when the legislation is passed the memorandum and articles of association will be passed into formal law on the basis of this legislation. Before that they have no legal effect because they are only in draft. I have indicated already to the House that I can make available to Deputies the draft of the memorandum and articles of association, but it is only when this Bill is passed that they will have any binding legal effect. I could not say that I would be bound by anything that is not of binding legal effect.

I said I proposed this amendment as a consequence of observations made on Second Stage. I want to make it very clear that it is also a consequence of direct consultations which I and the Minister for Labour had over a period with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on a variety of issues. I should like to express my appreciation to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for their positive and reasonable approach during the course of these discussions. They also welcome the fact that I am introducing this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, subsection (6), lines 10 and 11, to delete "or the Minister for Agriculture and Food".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, subsection (6), line 12, to delete "them" and substitute "him".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, subsection (6), line 13, to delete "by either Minister".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I move amendment No. 9:

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

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

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Garland

I oppose this section.

An Ceann Comhairle

That will be noted.

Mr. Kavanagh

We were advised by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that many of the matters we wanted to discuss would be appropriate to this section. We have had a very long discussion but I should like to remind the House that we have been unsuccessful in achieving the holding of the company in the public sector in the way we wanted. We wanted the Minister to assure us that there would be a holding of a 51 per cent stake for as long as the company exist. Indeed we wanted it to be set in granite and the 45 per cent which has been accepted by the House is a variable amount which can only reduce over the years. It is not acceptable to the Labour Party who have endeavoured to make changes which would ensure that this company would be kept, as far as possible, in the public sector and that the Minister — and his nominees on the board — would have overall control of the company. We tabled amendments to improve the Bill and to ensure that the State, the growers and the general public would have their best interests copperfastened in this Bill. By refusing to accept the amendments the Minister will, in time, probably have to admit in this House that he made a mistake. Time will show whether he or the Labour Party were right. All that could be achieved in this company could be done with a 51 per cent holding instead of having a minority shareholding by the Government. For that reason, we intend to oppose the section.

Mr. Sherlock

The longer the debate continues, the more concerned one becomes at the type of legislation which we are about to enact and the consequences which will follow without having the built-in safeguards required, in particular the straightforward safeguard of the State holding 51 per cent of the shareholding.

A few minutes ago I mentioned Finn Sugar and the interest they had in the sugar industry in 1990. One can never stand up here and express fears without having good grounds for doing so. I oppose the section — and the legislation generally — because our sugar industry at present is under threat from surplus sugar in Europe.

I also mentioned earlier in the debate the involvement of Ceimicí Teoranta with Ferruzzi, the Italian sugar manufacturing company. They are one of the eight largest companies in the world and are established in Little Island, Cork. Why did the Government stop that company buying into the industry? Ceimicí Teoranta originally had a 40 per cent share which was watered down to 20 per cent when it came to be sold. The Sugar Company's move was blocked by the Government so Wheat Industries, a subsidiary of Ferruzzi, are in direct competition with the Sugar Company for industrial sugar. If the Minister can contradict that statement let him do so. Massive multinational companies are waiting to get their hands on the Sugar Company and the bottom line was that the sugar industry must become efficient. We have heard about the paltry input by the State over the eighties when——

Mr. O'Kennedy

Paltry?

Mr. Sherlock

Yes, paltry in comparison to what has been spent, as Deputy Mac Giolla said, on private enterprise. The Minister was asking the company to carry industries which were no longer viable and I refer to Tuam, the Minister's area, and others, where it was decided to tell the company to rationalise. However, when they wanted to do so they were blocked and, consequently, they carried that burden. We should remember that the capital equity put in by the State has been used to good effect. How did the company buy into Odlums? The Sugar Company is profitable but it is now proposed to sell the majority shares. There is nothing to stop the multinationals to which I referred buying in because they are already based in this country. If the Minister wants to deny what I am saying he is entitled to do so but he knows he cannot. I have been interested in this matter since the early eighties. I could go on but, for the reasons I stated, we are opposing the section and the Bill generally.

Mr. O'Kennedy

There is clearly a difference of principle between us and I am not surprised that Deputy Sherlock and Deputy Kavanagh are opposing this section on the basis of that principle. However, my case rests when Deputy Sherlock said that a contribution by the taxpayer in less than ten years of £60 million to one company is a paltry sum. I do not know whether Deputy Sherlock takes the view that the taxpayers have unlimited funds to pour into every company. Because of our confidence that this new proposal — and the new structure for Siúicre Éireann under the new company — can save the taxpayer the continuing burden, we introduced this legislation. Like Deputy Sherlock, I want to see tax reduced and, at the same time, to launch into new markets in an atmosphere very different from when the Sugar Company were established in the protected thirties. That is what we are achieving. Deputy Sherlock takes the view that a sum of £60 million is paltry. It is anything but.

Mr. Sherlock

On a point of information, will the Minister tell the House if the quotas I have referred to are guaranteed only up to 1992?

Mr. O'Kennedy

As I indicated, the quota decision of the EC under the Council is in no way affected by what we do here. What we do will neither increase nor decrease the quota that was decided by the Council of Ministers a long time ago. While there may be proposals from time to time to reduce quotas on any front, be it sugar, dairy or whatever, I will deal with them when they arise at the Council of Ministers. What we are doing here has no relevance at all to that quota.

Mr. Garland

I say with regret that I am opposed to this section. I hoped the Minister would take on board amendment No. 2 from the Labour Party, a very reasonable amendment, which provided that he would keep 51 per cent. Had he agreed to that I may not have pressed my opposition to this section. As he has not agreed I am pressing my opposition to section 2.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 20.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Byrne, Eric.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• McCartan, Pat.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Howlin and McCartan.

Question declared carried.

NEW SECTION.

An Ceann Comhairle

I observe that amendments Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 form a composite proposal, and amendment No. 27 and substitute amendment No. 28 are alternative proposals. I am suggesting therefore that we discuss amendments Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 27 and substitute amendment No. 28 together by agreement. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Sherlock

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—All employees of Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. and its subsidiaries shall become members of the staff of the Holding Company upon the transfer of undertaking from Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. to the Holding Company.".

I will speak to the other amendments. Amendment No. 12 reads:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Each employee on being transferred to the Holding Company shall hold his/her office or employment on the same terms and under the same conditions as applied to his/her contract of employment immediately prior to the transfer and while in the service of the Holding Company the said terms and conditions shall not be less favourable to him/her than those prevailing immediately prior to the transfer save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with the trade unions or staff associations representing such employees.".

Amendment No. 13 states:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—The trade unions and staff associations recognised as representing the employees by Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. and its subsidiaries shall be likewise recognised by the Holding Company and its subsidiaries.".

Amendment No. 14 reads:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Until such time as the scales of pay and terms and conditions of employment and any other benefits, including rights and privileges, obligations and any other arrangements applying to employees so transferred are varied resultant from negotiations with the trade unions or staff associations concerned, the conditions which prior to the transfer had been negotiated on their behalf and applying at the time of the transfer, shall continue to apply to them save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with the trade unions or staff associations representing such employees.".

Amendment No. 15 reads:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Any authority exercised by a member of the staff of Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. shall continue to be exercised by him within the Holding Company until the same is varied by the management of the said Holding Company. If such variation works to the detriment of the status or pay and conditions of the said staff member within the Holding Company it shall be null and void unless the said variation shall have been negotiated with the trade union or staff association representing the said staff member.".

These are all reasonable requests to make on behalf of the employees of Siúicre Éireann. They are in accordance with the normal terms and conditions of employment which have been negotiated by the staff associations or unions involved. There should be no interruption in the continuity of employment. It is my understanding that the workers have put in a demand that the current rates of pay and conditions of employment should continue to apply, that the company should continue to recognise the existing trade unions, that the existing procedures for determining the rates of pay and conditions of employment should continue to be followed and that the redundancy terms for the company should continue to be those which emanated from the 1981 conciliation conference. The company have acknowledged that this is the current position and they have no plans to change the terms.

As could have been expected, when the workers first realised 12 months ago that the company was to be privatised they feared that they would be made redundant. The question which then arose was what terms would be offered. The company pointed out that there was no agreement on the terms to be offered. Reference was then made to the 1981 agreement. The Minister has stated many times in this debate that he and his representatives have held lengthy discussions with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on behalf of the employees. If the Minister recognises that the workers have a legitimate and valid claim to have the amendments inserted there should be no problem in accepting them.

An Ceann Comhairle

For the information of the House, I wish to repeat the amendments that we have decided to discuss together. They are as follows: amendment No. 10 in the name of Deputy Sherlock, which is immediately under discussion, together with amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 27 and substitute amendment No. 28.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Amendment No. 27 in my name sets out to achieve what Deputy Sherlock is seeking. Deputies will recall that I indicated when replying on Second Stage that the advice available to me was that provisions in European legislation would guarantee this and that because of the overriding provisions in European law there was no need to insert in our law specific provisions of the kind Deputy Sherlock has addressed. Even though that was the advice made available to me, I felt for another reason that it had to be made very clear that workers could have recourse directly to our own courts under legislation passed by ourselves.

As I said earlier today, I have held exhaustive consultations, along with my colleague, the Minister for Labour, with the trade unions on this issue. I think the Irish Congress of Trade Unions would agree that we had a very rational and reasonable discussion with them over a period of weeks and months and that because of the views they expressed, in addition to the views expressed here on Second Stage, I undertook to introduce an amendment to ensure that the workers of Siúicre Éireann would have the same rights in the new holding company. I would now like to refer to the amendment in my name, amendment No. 27. I think that Deputy Deasy, in deference to him, has an amendment along the same lines.

Mr. Deasy

I am afraid my amendment has been disallowed but I fully support the sentiments of the amendments listed. I was asking too much of the Minister.

Mr. O'Kennedy

For once, we appear to be ad idem in this House. My amendment reads that “every person who immediately before the transfer date was an employee of the Company, shall, on the transfer date, enjoy the same rights (including the rights under a pension or superannuation scheme of the company) and be subject to the same obligations as he enjoyed and was subject to immediately before the said date.” The amendment then goes on, lest there be any doubt, to make specific reference to things that people might otherwise say are excluded. The amendment states that “benefit” means any pension, annuity, lump sum, gratuity or other like payment give on retirement or payable after retirement in respect of past service or on or in connection with death during service or after retirement; that “company” includes any subsidiary of the company and, as a consequence, the range of activities the new holding company might get involved in; that “pension or superannuation scheme of the Company” means a scheme, arrangement or fund established in connection with the business of the company for the provision of benefit for the employees of the company or their dependants on their retirement or death — that is an important element of the amendment; that “subsidiary”— I felt it was necessary to put this in — has the meaning assigned to it by section 155 of the Companies Act, 1963; that “transfer date”— and this is stating the obvious — means the date on which the Minister transfers his shares in the company to the holding company.

In addition, there are some matters, and I want to acknowledge this, such as trade union rights in relation to negotiation which are not appropriate to legislation. I am advised that these things cannot be covered by legislation as they related to the relationship between worker and employer. As I understand it, the company — and we have discussed this with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions; they can express their own view but they have certainly expressed a positive response to me — have indicated their readiness to enter into formal agreement with the trade unions which would be registered in the Labour Court and in the new Labour Relations Commission. This would be a binding commitment.

I hope Deputies can see that I have done what I said I would do as I have always acknowledged — I have never said anything other than this — that the workers have a major role to play in the company, and I hope that, if possible, they will have an even more dynamic role to play in the new holding company. It is very much a partnership issue. I want to demonstrate the commitment of the Government and my commitment by putting in this provision. I hope that commends itself to the House and that the amendment can be accepted on that basis.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister has obviously had long discussions with the trade union movement and a measure of agreement has been arrived at. Since the Minister has given an assurance to the unions, I would think that my amendment would be far more comprehensive in giving recognition to the points of agreement than the Minister's amendment. The Minister's amendment provides that every person who immediately before the transfer date was an employee of the company shall, on the transfer date, enjoy the same rights and so on. My amendment provides that all employees of Siúicre Éireann cpt. and its subsidiaries shall become members of the staff of the holding company on the transfer to the holding company.

If I were a worker in the Sugar Company I would regard the provision in my amendment as far more watertight. There is quite a difference in saying that a worker shall become an employee of the holding company. I would have expected the Minister to mention my amendment and to say why it is not acceptable to him. It is far more comprehensive in protecting the rights of the workers and they would feel much happier if he were to accept it.

There are two areas of difficulty with the Minister's amendment. The first relates to the pension fund. The Ceann Comhairle instructed me that that part of my amendment could not be discussed in the House because it would require the Minister to spend extra money. Nevertheless we know there is a considerable deficit in the pension fund running into many millions of pounds. I am prepared to accept assurances from the Minister on the record of the House that before the transfer the shortfall will be made good. The company have made considerable sums and that assurance should be given before any arrangements are made. I cannot introduce an amendment on this matter but it would be fair and reasonable to ask for that assurance.

The second point relates to redundancy. The Minister gives certain assurances in his amendment but they are not of the proper strength to meet the needs of workers who may find themselves being made redundant when this new company takes over. Under the old agreement dating back as far as 1981 members of staff who were made redundant as a result of the closures in Tuam, Thurles or elsewhere, were entitled to five weeks' redundancy pay for each year of service plus statutory redundancy. I cannot see that the Minister has given assurances in his amendment. This is one of the most important variations between what I am trying to achieve and the Minister's amendment. If the words "same rights" in the Minister's amendment include that assurance it may satisfy the trade union movement and the workers. I should like to see that assurance in the document to be endorsed by the Minister and lodged with the Labour Relations Commission. The Minister should clarify his rights and obligations and the rights of the employees in the company.

I think we can all agree that the discussions which have taken place between the Minister and the unions amply cover the concerns of everybody working in that industry. The 1,715 workers in the company are entitled to know that they will become members of the new company. Each of them is entitled to the assurance that if, for whatever reason, he is made redundant he will get the same benefits as have been available since 1981. His pension rights must not be jeopardised by the fact that there is a shortfall in the pension fund.

I hope the Minister can tell me why he cannot accept the much more comprehensive amendment in my name. I could not include that part which was ruled out by the Chair. If we had an assurance that all that is contained in my amendment is acceptable, then we could get on with the remainder of the debate, without the same performance we had on section 2.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): This is a very important section covering the rights and entitlements of workers in the new company. The Minister has covered the position quite well and Deputy Kavanagh seems to be copperfastening the matter by providing that they shall continue to be employees of the company. The rights of the workers seem to be protected and if Deputy Kavanagh's amendment copperfastens their position, that is all the better. I welcome the protection of the workers' rights because they have kept the company out of the red, and they have the expertise to continued to do so. They must be looked after.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I can give in some detail the assurances being sought. I hope it will be clear that these assurances cover the range of issues which have been dealt with. We cannot include in legislation every detail of every contract of employment. If we did, each Bill would be cluttered up. Workers are covered by the protections available under the industrial relations code. In addition there are some special provisions relating to rights on the transfer date. I have introduced this amendment because of the concern that was expressed here. It is appropriate that there should be such detailed provisions and protections for workers.

I want to indicate to the House what is covered in the proposed agreement between the workers and the company. This draft agreement in relation to employee conditions which will operate immediately after the restructuring of the company contains the following commitments: no interruption in continuity of employment; current rates of pay and conditions of employment will continue to apply; the company will continue to recognise existing trade unions; existing procedures for determining rates of pay and conditions of employment will continue to apply.

At this time the company have no proposals to offer redundancy terms different from those presently being offered, which are the terms that emerged from conciliation conferences in 1981. Privatisation will not give rise to changes in continuity of employment in subsidiary companies or to existing procedures for determining rates of pay or conditions of employment in those companies. Within 30 days of vesting day, moneys to be transferred into the manual pension scheme to cover pre-1984 pensions as determined by the scheme's actuary — pre-1984 service in the manual scheme — will be funded on a phased basis over a five year period from 1991 in accordance with the advice of the scheme's actuary.

As I indicated already this agreement will be registered with the Labour Court under section 27 of the 1946 Industrial Relations Act and both parties agree to formally lodge a copy of this agreement with the Labour Relations Commission and to request the commission to consider themselves the guardians of the agreement. That covers the first point pretty extensively.

Deputies will note I have referred to pensions and I want to copperfasten the position with regard to them subject to the fact that we cannot put every detail of what is being done by way of binding commitment and obligation into legislation, as there would be figures appearing all over the place. There is provision that the pension fund will be fully remunerated and that £4.7 million will be paid into the fund now and the balance of £5.3 million will be paid over the next few years. The company have agreed, and the Minister for Finance——

Mr. Kavanagh

Did the Minister say that the money would be paid in over the next ten years?

Mr. O'Kennedy

No, over the next five years.

Mr. Sherlock

Did the Minister say £4.7 million now and the balance of £5.3 million over the next five years?

Mr. O'Kennedy

The figure is £4.7 million now and the balance of £5.3 million over the next five years. The company have agreed to this. Deputies will be aware that the Minister for Labour and I have had a direct hand in all of these discussions. I am glad to say that the Minister for Finance will in any event copperfasten this by acknowledging it formally to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. In other words he will acknowledge the contributions to the pension fund. Again, I do not want to put words into the mouth of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions or the representatives of the workers but it has been clearly indicated to us during our discussions with them that those terms and arrangements satisfy their preoccupations on those issues.

There will be no proposal to offer redundancy terms different from those at present being offered. I have specifically brought in amendments to put matters beyond doubt but I have been advised legally that there are certain matters that are not appropriate for legislation. I have to act on that advice and in this instance I can say only that it is right but I have arranged these formal binding agreements in the interests of the management as well as the workers because if we do not have a happy, reassured, confident workforce there will not be a dynamic company. I have no interest in seeing the workforce of the new holding company having doubts, apprehensions or distrust.

Deputy Kavanagh's amendment would in some instances mean a direct and immediate transfer of all the employees of Siúicre Éireann to the new company. The Attorney General has pointed out to me however, and this is quite obvious, that this would immediately require that all the employees of Siúicre Éireann would become direct employees of the new company. That will not be the case. In fact, most of them will remain employees of Siúicre Éireann which will, of course, be a subsidiary of the new holding company and their rights will be automatically and immediately protected. There is no suggestion that all of the employees will be transferred to the new company; they will remain employees of Siúicre Éireann, which will be a direct subsidiary of the holding company. For that reason I have been advised that Deputy Kavanagh's amendment is inappropriate.

Mr. Spring

I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on some points. I understand from what the Minister said in reply to Deputy Kavanagh's amendment that he had legal advice, that his amendment No. 27 to new section 6 is as far as he can go, but this legislation is quite short and there is no great detail necessary. I will be making the point in relation to Deputy Kavanagh's amendment on the rights of employees, which must be extremely important, that I see no reason why the draft agreement between the company and the unions cannot be incorporated in the legislation. I wish to state this very strongly and if the Minister is not prepared to take it on board, he might consider it again on Report Stage. The employees of the Sugar Company must have certain fears and worries in relation to what happened in other State companies that have become semi-State or otherwise in recent weeks. It is quite reasonable for them to seek statutory protection in the new legislation.

With regard to the draft agreement the Minister read out may I ask him what are the present terms of redundancy being offered by the company? He said the company had no proposals to offer redundancy at present but would he outline to us the present rates? Second, I find it extraordinary that the Minister in his discussions on the flotation of this company is not in a position to clear the decks. The idea of £5.3 million being paid over five years is quite extraordinary. Why can it not be done now? Why does the Minister not go all the way, clear the decks and put that into the legislation? If the company run into difficulties what guarantee do we have that this money will be paid? Why can it not be done now? What are the restrictions on the Minister for not doing that?

In relation to the document which will be registered with the new body, the Labour Relations Commission, why can the Minister not incorporate that in the legislation, as practically all of it is taken care of in Deputy Kavanagh's amendment which is far more comprehensive and is not in any way an encumbrance on the legislation because the Bill is quite short and sharp in terms of detail. For example, section 6 (4) as proposed by Deputy Kavanagh states:

The trade unions and staff associations recognised as representing the employees by Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. and its subsidiaries shall be likewise recognised by the Holding Company and its subsidiaries.

This is extremely important. I cannot see any reason — obviously, I do not have access to the advice of the Attorney General, as the Minister has — why the section as proposed by Deputy Kavanagh cannot be incorporated into the Bill. Certainly, from the reasons the Minister gave I do not think he has any strong objections to the proposed section. Deputy Kavanagh's amendment is a lot stronger in protecting the employees and is more clear and detailed. I would say to the Minister that even at this stage, if he needs to give it further consideration he should consider coming back here on Report Stage to strengthen it. He and his advisers have made an effort to come some way to meet the problems and the difficulties that were highlighted here on Second Stage.

I still have some difficulty recognising why the Bill cannot be more comprehensive. In particular, this would appear to be the start of a series of privatisations the Government have in mind, and I would say it is extremely important that workers' rights are protected, and seen to be protected. I see no reason they should not have protection under the legislation and not in draft agreements or otherwise to be lodged with the Labour Court or with the Labour Relations Commission. It is extremely important that the workers' rights which, in fairness, the Minister would seem to be protecting, — although there is some difference between Deputy Kavanagh's amendment and his own — would be protected in legislation, thereby setting the correct precedent for any further legislation in this area.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): There is one question I forgot to ask the Minister a while ago and Deputy Spring reminded me of it. In regard to the Labour Relations Commission, at one stage, I was told that the workers were quite worried about the agreement being lodged with them because six months' notice on either side would terminate any agreement. Is that true? If so, does it have any significance?

Mr. O'Kennedy

First, I have to say to Deputy Spring that, while I am prepared to look at anything at any stage, as I have already demonstrated, I do not anticipate that my view on this will change. However, I do not want to give the impression that I have a rigid, orthodox, irremovable view on it. We have specified all protections in detail where we think detail appropriate. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions are satisfied with our efforts, although I do not suggest that if they, for one reason or another, have other things to say in relation to any particular aspect of it that they have no right to say so. I want to say to Deputy Spring — and I hope this will reassure him — he knows these are matters for contract between employer and employee in the normal course and the State sets the framework in legislation to protect workers' rights. That has gone on for the last 20 years particularly and that framework is very important in addition to the ordinary common law rights that apply to employees.

In addition, those provisions apply to State companies as they do to private companies. There was no provision specifically in the legislation setting up the Sugar Company or in the various sugar Acts over the years of the detail that Deputy Spring is suggesting I should put in now. None of those details is in the corpus of laws and statutes dealing with the Sugar Company for the obvious reason that it was not contemplated or appropriate.

Mr. Sherlock

We have come a little further since that.

Mr. O'Kennedy

What I am saying is that there have been other developments, and I am happy to see them develop. I grew up and played at the side of the street as well. I did not grow up with employers, let me tell the Deputy. I grew up and hurled with youngsters who worked from 14 years of age in the factory in Nenagh. I know the feelings and the security that is required, and I know the employees in the Sugar Company perhaps more than I would have known management. That is why I am very definitely, apart from my own personal background, aware of the need for these protections.

I hope the House can accept from me in trust that it is not a matter of excluding something that was already there because it is not even in the existing laws relating to the Sugar Company. What we are doing here is adding provisions that were not in the existing legislation. Yes, the unions had, over a period of years, negotiated agreements with management. Sometimes there were tensions and frustrations, but the last thing that would be appropriate would be to introduce here specific details and conditions of service on every item in a general framework of law. If Deputies reflect on it, they will acknowledge that they could not reasonably be expected to go farther than they have gone. Otherwise our role here would become the role of direct intermediary between employer and employee in every case, and I think the unions and the employers are best equipped to do that job themselves. I do not think I can add any more to it.

Mr. Spring

What are the rates of redundancy?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I have referred to the agreement in relation to redundancy.

Mr. Spring

What are the present rates?

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions requested me, among other things, to finally persuade the Sugar Company to renegotiate the terms of redundancy with the unions.

Mr. Spring

What are they?

Mr. O'Kennedy

This is now being discussed. I made it clear to them that I could not and would not force any company to do this or that but I would convey certain views to them. We formally conveyed that to the company and requested the company last month to renegotiate these clauses with the unions. I understand that at this moment those matters are being discussed between the unions and the company and I do not intend to go into detail.

Mr. Spring

I will be very brief. The Minister read out the terms of the draft agreement. "The company has at this time no proposals to offer redundancy terms different from those at present being offered which are those terms which emerged from conciliation conferences in 1981". He is now telling me that negotiations are going on between the unions and the company to vary those terms. I have asked the Minister if he would now put on the record of the House what terms are being offered because, as night follows day, within a matter of time, terms will be on the table and I think we should now have them in this House as a matter of record. That is all I am asking the Minister for. I would say, with respect, that the terms should be put on the record of this House. Otherwise this agreement has no meaning.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am not in a position to put on the record of the House the outcome of negotiations which are at present being conducted between the company and the trade unions. It is as simple as that. The unions are in direct negotiation with the company at this time and I think it is really asking too much that I should be asked to go into all the detail of what they should, might or could do. That is a matter for them and that is where they are at this moment.

Mr. Sherlock

If the Minister is so concerned about the rights of the great workforce he is talking about, why not copperfasten their conditions in this changeover, and particularly in the matter of redundancy? I repeat workers are concerned that there would be redundancies. Why have they had to contend with a situation over the last two years where the company have denied that an agreement exists? What they did say was that they had redundancy terms, but they have denied that an agreement exists. What is contained in the document from which the Minister has now quoted is very vague. The company acknowledged that there is a current position and have no plans to change the terms: they did not say agreement. There is a vast difference there and the Minister is not fooling anybody when he says——

Mr. O'Kennedy

I cannot let that go on the record. I have not tried to fool anybody.

Mr. Sherlock

The Minister does not say that, just because these are written into a document and the Minister reads them into the record of the Dáil, that will copperfasten the conditions which the employees desire, and that has to do very definitely with the redundancy agreement which was negotiated in 1981, reviewed in 1986 in the Labour Court and there was no question that the company unilaterally withdraw from an agreement that was made in 1981. They are now saying there are terms. That is different from agreement. That is enough about that.

By means of my amendment it is reasonable to press that the employees of Siúicre Éireann and their subsidiaries shall become members of the staff of the holding company on the transfer of undertakings. The Minister implied that Siúicre Éireann would be a subsidiary of the new holding company and that the employees would be employees of Siúicre Éireann. The Minister will have to clarify that position because the new holding company will have complete control of the sugar industry and all employees will be transferred to the new company and will have a new contract of employment.

If this is not a transfer which is provided for in Statutory Instrument 306/80, Safeguarding of Employees' Rights on Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, 1980, why has the Minister not referred to that? That is a European statutory regulation introduced by a Minister of his own party who was in the European Council at the time. Why is that not written into the legislation we are about to enact which concerns the rights, privileges and conditions of employment of 1,700 people in this company? The Minister said those people would be employees of the Sugar Company; that is not correct. They would be employees of the new holding company. Consequently, in my proposed amendment, I am asking that all employees of Siúicre Éireann and its subsidiaries shall become members of the staff of the new holding company.

The Irish Sugar Company have many subsidiaries, but the employees of the subsidiaries are employees of the Sugar Company; but the subsidiaries have their own boards of management. That position needs to be clarified. Workers are observing this situation and know when their rights are infringed.

It is absolutely atrocious that the Minister would come into the House and tell us that the company have withheld a sum of £10 million.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I did not say that.

Mr. Sherlock

If it has to be paid in, it will be paid in.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy can put any interpretation he likes on it.

Mr. Sherlock

I will put the interpretation I know on it. I thought I would be allowed to finish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Sherlock give way to the Minister for a moment?

Mr. O'Kennedy

On a point of accuracy I did not say that. It is a sad and regrettable feature of some elements in this debate that where significant guarantees and protections are built in, which did not exist previously, some Deputies, such as Deputy Sherlock, want to distort that by saying we are failing to give protection. I want to tell Deputy Sherlock — and some Members of his party — that his attempt to distort is not doing a service to the workers, and they know it.

Mr. Sherlock

The Minister is the boss of the Irish Sugar Company. Can he tell me why this issue did not come before the board of the Irish Sugar Company? How is it that the issue of privatisation was not discussed by the board of the Irish Sugar Company? It has been handled right through by the Minister. Have the board been asked to make a decision? If the Minister, who is the boss of the Irish Sugar Company holding the majority share, says that over the years the company withheld that amount of money from the pension fund, then I would respectfully suggest that this is a very serious situation.

I will quote from a document from a group I accompanied when Siúicre Éireann cpt manual workers pension scheme of 1984 was being negotiated. Up to 1984 the workers in the Irish Sugar Company paid into the Irish Sugar Workers Gratuity Society contributions which were deducted from their wages, and the pension paid to retiring members was deemed to have been a non-contributory pension but the funds which the workers contributed were transferred automatically to the new pension scheme when the new deed was drawn up in 1984. The commencement date means the date on which the funding of the scheme shall commence which shall be the date on which the Sugar Workers Gratuity Society is dissolved in accordance with the provisions of the Friendly Society Act, 1896, and on which the funds of the said society are transferred to the trustees. Who is trying to cod whom? That money was contributed by the workers. If that amount was outstanding to fund the pre-1984 pension scheme, there must have been something radically wrong if the workers were told their money was invested in gilt edge securities and that the company were putting in their pound of flesh to back up the workers' contributions. That should be the subject of a full investigation. To say that moneys will be put in is simply holding out a carrot to workers when we are enacting legislation which could have such a detrimental effect on their future livelihood. This is a matter about which I am very concerned, because I have a copy of the document.

The pension scheme established by the said resolution on 4 June 1959 was subsequently terminated under the terms of the deeds and rules of that scheme. Where did that money go? Is the Minister saying the kitty was empty, and that there were no funds in the scheme to provide their pensions? I cannot accept that or that the amount outstanding is £10 million — remember, I am referring to the pre-1984 pension scheme. Since then, the Sugar Company could not say they are withholding any moneys and will put in money because since 1984 a contributory pension scheme was operated by the company.

There are many unresolved issues. There is no point in the Minister saying they are negotiating with Congress. If that is the outcome of negotiations, it is not good enough to say that the agreement will be registered with the Labour Court. The redundancy agreement was registered with the Labour Court in 1981, because it was negotiated as a result of the usual procedure and the company wanted to withdraw from it. As I said, many issues of concern have arisen under this legislation.

I will be pressing amendment No. 10 which is reasonable in view of the fact that in Statutory Instrument 306/80 the Minister referred to is the Minister for Labour. Normally it would apply in the case of transactions between companies other than State of semi-State companies. However, as there will be State involvement in this take-over. The Minister must build into the legislation the conditions which should apply to such take-overs so that the rights, privileges, etc. of employees will be preserved. I will be pressing my amendment.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

On behalf of the management and employees I should like to welcome the assurance given by the Minister. I agree that the workforce in Siúicre Éireann have been very dynamic and caring. As a beet grower I am very familiar with them and I know all about the industry.

Some very forceful arguments have been made about the pension fund. I welcome the fact that this fund will be funded with a sum of £4.7 million immediately and a further £5.3 million over the next five years. This further proves that part privatisation is the way forward for this company. If it were not for such funding during difficult times the company would not have been able to operate. It was a secure way of funding the company as the Government had shares in it. The company have had cash flow problems and I welcome the commitment given by the Minister that he will provide funding for them.

Mr. Sherlock

They made a profit of £22 million.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

As I understand it, Greenvale plc will be the new company and Siúicre Éireann will continue to exist. There are numerous precedents for this type of flotation of shares. The shares in companies such as the Kerry Group, Waterford Co-op and Avonmore have been floated on the market using the same principle. The workers need have no fear about this flotation as the same criteria are being used on this occasion. I welcome the commitment given by the Minister and the Government——

Mr. Spring

What is the value of the shares?

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The workers have always been given more commitments by Fianna Fáil Governments than they have by other parties when they were in Government.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I want to make two brief observations. I believe the Deputies who have been in the House all day will appreciate that in every respect we have demonstrated our commitments to the workers. I have to say that I find it somewhat ironic and a little unreasonable for Deputy Sherlock to complain about what we are doing when we are including provisions in the Bill which will secure redundancy payments in a way they were not secured before.

Mr. Spring

The Minister cannot tell us what it is.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy has gone to great trouble here to point out that the workers were not happy with their redundancy agreement with the company. This issue is now being dealt with.

Mr. Spring

The Minister cannot tell us what it is.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We are providing funding for the pensions scheme which he suggested was not adequately dealt with in 1984 or 1985. We are dealing with this issue now. It is a little hypocritical for someone who claims to represent workers and whose party have changed their name on numerous occasions — now they are The Workers' Party — to come in here and claim that what we are doing will give rise to all sorts of questions.

Mr. Sherlock

If the Minister had——

Mr. O'Kennedy

The questions are only in his suspicious mind. He wants to sow doubt where there is no doubt, but he is not going to sow any doubts in the minds of the workers or unions or in my mind.

Mr. Sherlock

That is a matter of fact.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We could be listening to the Deputy for another two hours talking about the same old stuff. He does not want reassurances; he did not want them when he came in today and he does not want them now. There has never been so much detail given in any House on my legislation——

Mr. Spring

That is not true.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The more assurances I give Deputy Sherlock, the more questions he asks and the more doubts he raises. The Deputy is welcome to his doubts and he can sow whatever seeds he likes but the workers and the unions know the reality.

A Deputy

I think the Minister is a bit doubtful himself.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call Deputy Browne.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): As I said earlier today, it is a pity we are discussing the Committee Stage of the Bill while negotiations are still going on.

Mr. Sherlock

With whom?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Negotiations are taking place between representatives of the Sugar Company and the unions.

Mr. Sherlock

It is what happens here that matters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Sherlock, we cannot have this cross-examination. Deputy Browne is addressing the Chair and I will not tolerate any interruptions.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I do not know if Deputy Sherlock is deliberately trying to trip me up as well as the Minister.

Mr. Bradford

He is confused.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): As the Deputy knows, negotiations are taking place today. In fact, they went on so long that people who were coming to see me could not get in. However, that is beside the point. I hope the unions are negotiating for improvements for the workers. Perhaps the conditions of workers will be improved after today. Therefore, maybe it is as well that a provision has not been written into the Bill yet. Does the six months time limit in regard to agreements with the Labour Relations Commission still hold?

Mr. Kavanagh

Perhaps it is because I was a trade union official for 12 years that I am a little more suspicious of the answers given by the Minister than I might otherwise be. The Minister told the House that the pension fund will receive £4.7 million now and £5.3 million over the next five years, giving a total of £10 million. Can the Minister tell us what the deficit in the pension fund is at present? I believe it is a good deal more than £10 million. That is a reasonable question to ask and I think there must be a straight answer to it. If the Minister does not have that information with him now I will ask him again next week when I am sure we will be here again.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It looks like it.

Mr. Kavanagh

I cannot find any figures in the 1989 annual report in regard to the deficit in the pension fund.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy is new to the job. Wait until he cuts his teeth.

Mr. Kavanagh

Certainly the note on the pension scheme in the report gives rise to a number of questions and to suspicion. The Minister should prepare a statement between now and next week on this important area: how it will be funded, the amount of the shortfall and why the funding has to be phased in over a certain period although the trade unions have asked him to make up the shortfall now. The phasing-in process is of some concern to me. As Deputy Spring has said, the Minister indicated that in two years' time he could have sold off some or all of his shares in the company.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I have dismissed that point.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister told us earlier today that it is possible his 45 per cent share in the company could be sold in two years' time.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is the Deputy's interpretation.

Mr. Kavanagh

That point was clearly made here. If this is the case the sum of £5.3 million, which I do not believe is adequate to make up the shortfall, might never be paid. I ask the Minister to get the answers to these questions between now and the next day. I am also worried about what will happen on the redundancy side. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm the next day whether the redundancy terms offered in 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 are the same as those in the document which he will lodge with the Labour Relations Commission and which he will endorse as Minister for Food and Agriculture. I hope we will get the answers to these questions next week.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.