Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1991

Vol. 406 No. 1

Sugar Bill, 1990: Committee Stage.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

I would like the Government to consider the definition of the words "the Minister", so that it will not refer to the Minister for Finance, as at present, but to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. It seems unhelpful that the controlling body of this holding company should be the Minister for Finance and the Department. In my view if anything is unhelpful within the Government structure it is the overall control by the Department of Finance. I cannot see why the Minister for Agriculture and Food cannot have overall control of the Sugar Company whether it would be a public company or a State company as at present. The Minister for Agriculture and Food would do a far better job if he were the man with 51 per cent of the holding, irrespective of who the Minister is — some Ministers would do it better than others, obviously. He would do a far better job than would any Minister for Finance who would be controlling the company by remote control. The uncommercial attitude within the Department of Finance would be a major restraint in getting the company to operate as we would wish.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I would like to support my colleague. The hand of the Department of Finance is like the sword of Damocles hanging over so many Departments. The interest of the Department of Finance is simply and solely to make sure that we balance the books. I am quite sure that the Minister for Agriculture and Food has genuine concern for and knows what is needed in the Sugar Company and what should be invested in it. It is a very obvious and sensible move to give him responsibility for the control of finance under this Bill.

It is a pity we are discussing this Bill today, considering that there is a major meeting between workers and unions today and that matters have not been settled in advance. Would anything do more damage to the success of privatisation in the long run than disagreement between the workers and the company as to what arrangements should have been made? It is regrettable that we are working on the legislation in advance of the meeting today.

The section with which we are now dealing is merely dealing with interpretation. There is a tendency to veer very widely outside that altogether.

My party's stance on this is that the Minister should not have to introduce this Bill at all. This company have been a huge success as a result of the changes that have been made by management and the profits that have been achieved over the past three years show that the company are well capable of achieving all the aspirations that the Department and the company themselves should be able to achieve. In my view, therefore, we have no need for this Bill and I believe it will be to the detriment of the company.

In principle I agree with Deputy Deasy's agreement, but I would like to put my cards very clearly on the table. Although this Bill was accepted on Second Stage and it is a fait accompli that privatisation will be introduced in some form or other, I hope the amendment we have tabled will be accepted by the Minister. However I think it is reasonable to agree with the principle being espoused by Deputy Deasy that the Minister for Agriculture and Food himself and his Department would be better controlling the shares of the company rather than the Department of Finance. We know the Department of Finance — and what has often been referred to as the dead hand of Finance — and what their priorities are. I would prefer to see a Department that has an intimate knowledge of agriculture being in control of the shares rather than seeing these shares in the hands of the Minister for Finance.

I have said it before and I will say it again, that if ever there was a proposal to privatise a public company which was unjustified, unwarranted and unnecessary, this Bill to sell off the Irish Sugar Company is surely it. It has the support of the Fine Gael Party holus-bolus. I find it difficult to understand the logic in Deputy Deasy's amendment; however as it refers to the Minister for Agriculture and Food having primary responsibility for the development of the agriculture and food industry, it merits attention. The agriculture and the food industries are, of course, the great resources that we have in this country but unfortunately they have been totally neglected by the present Government and the previous Fine Gael Government. If attention had been paid to this industry why did the Sugar Company have to narrow their base to a two factory configuration and close down our food factories one after the other as was done in the Midleton and Mallow Erin Foods factories?

As this amendment refers to the development of the agriculture and food industries and its purpose is to ensure that finance accruing to the State should be to the benefit of the agriculture and food industries, I support it.

The Deputy seems to be under a misapprehension. We have not as yet come to any amendments but have been dealing with section 1, to which there are no amendments and which deals merely with interpretation. We are having a widening of that subject altogether.

A Second Stage debate.

A Second Stage debate, as the Deputy has rightly said, which is totally out of order, so let us confine our remarks to section 1, interpretation only.

I will try to stay within the confines of the section. I want to support what has been said by Deputy Deasy. On Second Stage we referred to our hope——

We have not come to that.

But we have stated our hope that the new company would be a leader in the food industry, and therefore we would wish to see the Minister for Agriculture and Food and not the Minister for Finance being the main influence on the new body. Deputy Kavanagh has already referred to the dead hand of the Department of Finance. The Minister for Agriculture and Food should be the person driving the public company in order to ensure that they will play the developmental role in the food industry that we believe they can.

First, let me assure the House that I am very much in sympathy with the points being made. I think I can illustrate that by referring to an action I took when I was Minister for Finance, because as Minister for Finance I transferred the responsibility for overall policy of this particular company to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. I subsequently, of course, inherited the overall responsibility that I had transferred at that time, as Minister for Finance.

The Minister inherited the Irish Sugar Company in very good shape.

That is correct and that remains the case. Second, on the point the Deputies have made, the Minister for Finance under the Ministers and Secretaries Acts of 1924 and subsequently, is in fact the nominated shareholder of all State commercial companies. While other Ministers have responsibility in respect of agriculture, transport and power or whatever, the actual shareholding is always vested in the Minister for Finance, and that is the reason it is here as well. The fact that this legislation is being introduced by me as Minister for Agriculture and Food, underlines the responsibility the Government acknowledge should rest with the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The fact that we will come later to special provisions on the special share and as to who holds the share and the control that goes with that, namely the Minister for Agriculture and Food, also underlines that fact. There are no grounds for any apprehension of the kind mentioned. The alternative is to say that the Minister for Finance should not be a shareholder in any State company. That, however, has been the way for years. It is purely because the Department of Finance are responsible for the management of the State finances, as Deputies Deasy and Kavanagh will recognise since they were both formerly in government. As far as quality is concerned, that is the responsibility of the appropriate Minister, namely the Minister for Agriculture and Food.

I would wager a significant sum that if the Minister had his way he would be only too delighted to agree with what I am suggesting. I think he understands the ridiculous nature of the present situation where Finance controls what is the prerogative of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

I wanted to put down an amendment to section 1 specifically on this interpretation and I was informed by the people in the Bills office that it would result in amending every second line of the Bill. I decided, rather than create bedlam by having about 99 amendments in, I would put down an amendment to change the definition of "Minister". I hope the Minister will appreciate that. I feel very strongly that the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Minister should have control: "Minister" in the Bill should refer to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The point the Minister has just made in regard to introducing the Bill is not really significant. What is significant is who controls the company. The Minister is being asked to do the donkey work but has no real responsibility. Once this Bill is passed the responsibility will be vested in the Department of Finance and that will inhibit the development of the food industry. We are talking about vast sums of money, much of which will be reinvested to promote the horticultural industry as well as the beet industry. I want to see that responsibility vested in the Department and the Minister for Agriculture and Food. I want to see the public and the farming community getting value for money. I want to see more jobs provided. I see the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance as a massive inhibition. Because of that I will have to put this section to a vote. I am making a protest and I want the Minister to sit up and do something about it.

It was the fact that Deputy Deasy spoke to his amendment that drew the reply I have.

I appreciate, Deputy, that we had not been referring precisely to the section.

If what Deputy Deasy says was true he would have to insist that no Department would have any reference whatever to the Minister for Finance in respect of State companies, but they do, for reasons that have existed since 1924 — financial accountability in all commercial State companies is to the Minister for Finance. However, the responsibility for decision making, for control, for protection of worker interests, farmer interests and other interests rests absolutely with the Minister for Agriculture and Food. Lest there be any doubt, there are in this legislation provisions which guarantee that the Minister for Agriculture and Food of the day, through the special share which he will acquire, is responsible for protecting that. This is the first time that such a provision has been enshrined in legislation. That is my purpose. If the Deputy presses his amendment he is doing it in the light of the fact that what he wants to achieve has already been achieved.

This is unprecedented. Historically what the Minister is saying may be correct but this is the first occasion that this House has had a proposal before it to change a company in the agricultural field from State ownership to public ownership. What I am saying to the Minister is let us break that mould, to use an expression which was bandied about by the Minister's partners in Coalition. Let us break the mould — let us break the sod, as one might say, and do something new, something different, something that will be of tremendous benefit. I agree with the overall content of the Bill but, of all the things we could do in this Bill, what I am suggesting now would be the most progressive.

Before we finish with this section let me, on a point of clarification, refer to two other points. The Bill refers to the company and to the holding company. I am slightly confused. When the Bill was read on Second Stage we were led to believe that the name of the company would be Greenvale. Lo and behold, last week we were told that the name of the company was to be Greencore. There has been a change of name within a few weeks.

That is what worries me about this Bill.

Is the company to be called Greencore or will the Minister have another surprise in store for us today?

I would not want to take the Deputy by surprise at this hour of the morning. I will not have any other surprises in store for him. The explanation for the change that is referred to, which does not feature in the Bill in any event, is that when a search was conducted in the Register of Companies it was found that some other small company somewhere already had the name Greenvale.

It is a subsidiary of the Irish Sugar Company. The Minister knows that.

It was then decided to adopt the name Greencore.

It is not very attractive, but on short notice I suppose it will do.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 61.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • 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'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) All the shares in the Holding Company acquired by the Minister for Finance in accordance with subsection (1) will be transferred to the Minister for Agriculture and Food and thenceforth the Minister for Agriculture and Food will be solely responsible as the Government's representative in the new company with the primary responsibility for the development of agriculture and the food industry.".

The proposal in this amendment was discussed during the course of our debate on section 1 on the interpretation of "Minister". I have no intention of pressing this amendment to a vote as I have said as much as I wish to say on it; the vote we have just taken will suffice and we have made our points.

If Deputy Deasy wishes control of the shareholding in the company to be held by the Department of Agriculture and Food, then either amendment No. 2 in my name or amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Sherlock would be more appropriate. He should not be concerned about whether it is the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Agriculture and Food who will have control. It is not simply for ideological reasons that we believe the Minister for Agriculture and Food should be the majority shareholder in the company; it is simply because we believe it would be in the best interests of agriculture, the growers and employees if he held the majority shareholding. I will refer to this point when we are debating my amendment. I cannot agree with Deputy Deasy's amendment. My amendment deals more appropriately with the problems referred to by Deputy Deasy in regad to the interpretation of "Minister".

For much the same reasons, I will not be supporting this amendment. As I said earlier, I find it difficult to understand the position taken by the Fine Gael Party on this issue in view of the fact that they have gone holus-bolus for the privatisation of the Sugar Company. The figures now show that the company are very profitable and naturally private enterprise will want to get their hands on it. The 1990 report disclosed that profits of £22 million were made, an increase of 30 per cent over the previous year, and turn-over jumped from £215 million to more than £271 million. The amendment proposes that the Minister for Agriculture and Food should benefit from any dividends accruing from the shareholding in the new company, whatever its name will be — I do not think the Minister or the Government have yet decided on a name. The Fine Gael stance on this issue is very ambiguous to say the least of it.

There is nothing ambiguous about the Fine Gael stance on this Bill. When we were in Government we pushed very strongly for an improvement in the finances of the Sugar Company. The Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government pumped a massive amount of money into the company. We expected the company to become profitable, which they did. There were closures but the fact is that they are no longer a liability to the taxpayer. The Workers' Party should be delighted that the company are no longer a liability but are a profit making concern.

They were never a liability.

When they were losing money they were a massive liability and it was taxpayers' money which had to be used to shore up the company.

(Interruptions.)

I should like the Minister to clearify the extent to which the Minister for Finance will have shares in the company. This is not specifically referred to in the Bill, but I recollect that in this Second Stage speech he referred specifically to figures. I think he said that 45 per cent of the shares would be held by the Minister for Finance — I do not think it was 51 per cent — and that this figure would decrease as time went by. I should like the Minister to give some details of the initial proposed holding by the Minister for Finance and how it will change as time progresses.

While I agree with Deputy Deasy that it is good the company are viable in a commercial sense, I ask him to take into consideration the cost to the State of paying dole to many former Sugar Company workers. This is as big a loss to the State as the cost of any subsidy to the Sugar Company. These points should be taken into consideration.

I will not be supporting Deputy Deasy's amendment. I am opposed to the section as I do not want to facilitate the privatisation of this company. I will give my reasons for this when the debate gets going properly.

I want to clarify matters. Deputy Deasy has indicated that he will withdraw his amendment. Therefore, we should be proceeding to deal with amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Kavanagh.

I find this discussion a little unreal. Deputy Deasy has indicated that he will withdraw his amendment and Deputy Garland has said he will not be supporting it. Let us be realistic.

The points made by Deputy Deasy in regard to the shareholding which will be held by the Minister for Agriculture and Food would be more relevant in the context of the debate on Deputy Kavanagh's amendment. Therefore, I will deal with it then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move 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 shares 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.".

This section is the core section of the Bill. It deals with the changeover of a public company to a part-privatised company and the method the Minister intends to use to do that. My amendment is quite clear. I propose that the Minister should hold the controlling interest in this company since it has been decided that he is going down the road of privatisation. The simple solution to the problem is for the Minister to declare that he will hold 51 per cent of the total equitable shares of the company. Paragraph (b) of the amendment proposes that the Minister retain a further 15 per cent of the equitable shares for the beet growers and employees of the company. That means that in total 66 per cent of the shares would be held by the Minister, the employees and the growers.

In this section the Minister is trying to walk on both sides of the street at the same time, the public sector side and the private industry side. He is trying to give the impression to those of us who are concerned about who will control the company in the future that the company will be safe in his hands, that because he will hold a number of shares control of the company will remain with him. On the other hand he knows that the institutional investors, the people in the Stock Exchange, people who are interested in grabbing as many successful public companies as they can will perhaps draw back if they find that control of the company remains in the public sector. We have to come clean in this area and say whether it will be public or private.

My whole approach in this amendment is to ensure that the Minister will retain control of the company. I do not propose this simply for ideological reasons but for strategic and national interests. The amendment is simple. It signals to investors that the Government have a legitimate right to protect the Sugar Company, the beet growers and the employees from an unwelcome bid. I know this may not be on the horizon now but it certainly cannot be ruled out in the next decade. A further question will arise in the near future when the Sugar Company will look for new equity funds. As a 51 per cent shareholder, the Government will have to take up their share entitlement. Without a specific Government commitment to retain a majority shareholding, the Government will fall back on this so-called golden share as a protection. This mechanism has already been the subject of criticism by the European Commission in the case of British Telecom and it will not stand the real test in the European Court of Justice. If it comes to a conflict between the majority of shareholders and the Government if, for example, they try to stop a foreign takeover, the matter certainly will be referred to the European Court of Justice.

Leaving all questions of ideology aside the Sugar Company, one of the Irish food companies which at present cannot be bought out by a multinational, will be put in jeopardy if this section is passed. If the Minister is serious about retaining control of the company for the development of the food industry he should, at the very minimum, have written into the Articles of Association a provision for double voting rights for the Government, beet growers and employees provided they retain 30 per cent of the total shares of the company in the event of a takeover bid. This would not stop institutions from investing in the company. It did not stop them from buying into non-share issues of the employee-management owned National Freight Consortium in Britain which went on the Stock Exchange in 1989. It would certainly be a way in which the Minister could ensure that this company would remain within the controlling interest of the Irish people through the State.

The Minister, by putting forward his convoluted proposal for privatisation of the company, has caused a lot of problems for himself and the Irish public. As I have said, he has given the impression that the company will remain in public ownership while, at the same time, clearly signalling that after 1992 there is no guarantee that that will be the case. The proposition that institutional industries will not accept majority shares held by interests other than private investors is a great threat. Institutional investors look at the track records of a company before investing — mainly profit growth, sales growth, capital growth in value of shares and the dividends received. The Minister should understand that the company under his control will attract private investors because they have performed well, and that is the bottom line for people who invest in industry. As I have said, it is factors such as profit growth, sales growth, capital growth and dividends received that will attract the private shareholder.

The Minister should tell us at this stage why he has put forward the proposal to sell off the shares in the company. He should demonstrate to the public that he will hold the majority interest in the company by taking on board the amendment in my name. In that way there would be no confusion and no loss of interest by the private sector in investing in the remainder of the shares of the company.

The Workers' Party support the amendment. The Sugar Company have had their ups and downs since the establishment of the company. Many of their problems have originated from Government interference. A great example of that was the setting up of Erin Foods by the then Managing Director, Lieutenant Michael Joe Costello. In this country there is great potential for the development of the food industry but yet that company were restricted in the marketplace to 10 per cent of the home market. Therefore, from day one the prospects of establishing the company in the food market were very restricted.

Many of the problems of the Sugar Company resulted from Government instructions to keep the factories open. Reference was made to that in the debate on the closure of the Tuam sugar factory some years ago. Beet was not being grown in the Tuam area and it was costing the company £3 million per annum to keep that factory open. Against that background there has been a remarkable recovery by the Sugar Company in recent years. I have given the figures of profits for previous years. We have now reached a point where we have a viable Sugar Company that do not require taxpayers' money for support. With the changes in EC Structural Funds the Sugar Company are the best company to promote a viable food industry. If we do not develop our own product there is very little prospect of creating jobs for the 240,000 people who are unemployed at present. We have the land to produce the product and the workforce, all it requires is the capital. The company who are about to be handed over to private enterprise are a viable one, that cannot be denied. Consequently, why should the State not retain 51 per cent of the shares in the company?

I am sure, when the Minister is replying, he will help to allay the fears of the workers because, in a company, there is capital, raw material and a workforce. The Irish Sugar Company have a workforce second to none, I know that from experience as I worked on the factory floor at Mallow Sugar Factory and I saw it developing technically. That resulted in a massive increase in throughput which has made the factory very efficient. A few short years ago, when it became necessary for the workforce, through their unions, to make a stand on particular matters relating to conditions and pay, it was decided that a certain course of action would be taken. The threat held over the workforce — and the company — was that the company were ready to import sugar, we were told they had it in the port of Dublin ready to distribute if the situation continued. If the Minister and the State do not retain 51 per cent of the shares of this company, what is to stop the company from importing sugar? Nothing; the danger is that profit will be their motivation and goal and it could well be that it would be cheaper to import sugar, with the result that we should lose our quota of 200,000 tonnes. Something in excess of that figure is produced but where would the workforce go? What would happen to the hauliers and the many agencies who benefited from the production and manufacture of sugar in our own country? We have the land to produce the beet which is the raw material for sugar and nobody can deny that the company have made great strides to make the industry modern and efficient. I know that the introduction of technology meant that jobs were sacrified and, consequently, the only way to secure the industry is for the State to retain 51 per cent of the shares in the holding company. For that reason, I support the amendment.

I also support this amendment although it does not go far enough and that is why I am opposed to the whole section. The reason for opposing it is different from the stance taken by the Labour Party and The Workers' Party. The Green Party are not opposed, per se, to private enterprise and are not in favour per se of State enterprise. The situation here calls for a partnership between growers, employees and the consumer; this is a unique opportunity to set up a completely different type of structure where all these separate interests would be properly and fairly represented so that each interest would receive a fair deal from the industry. The employees would get a fair wage, plus a share of the profits, the growers would get a fair price for their produce and fair treatment from the company, which has not always been the case in the past and the consumers would be protected against a possibly rapacious private industry in a monopoly which might be in a position to exploit the consumer by charging excessive prices for sugar. Furthermore, as Deputy Sherlock pointed out, the other side of the coin is that we want to stop imports of sugar when the world price of sugar drops temporarily below our prices. This will safeguard the interests of the employees and the growers and, in the long term, benefit the consumer.

There is a slight error in Deputy Kavanagh's amendment in that he twice refers to the word "equitable" when referring to holdings. With respect, that should be "equity" and perhaps that could be looked at. His proposal is in two parts, he would like to see 100 per cent instead of 51 per cent and he should like to see 15 per cent of the shares available to growers and employees. I commend that principle to the House but the problem is that, if these shares were to be fully transferable in the normal way — the way in which companies work — I wonder if the employees and growers would retain them or if they would sell them on the open market. We do not know who will own these shares, they could all finish up in the ownership of the one person or corporation. With some reservations, I support the amendment.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy Sherlock seems to have a great hang-up about the Fine Gael Party and he blames them for what they did in the past. I am trying to figure out what century it will be when a Deputy will blame The Workers' Party for what they did in Government.

Deputy Garland said that the Minister should have a holding of 100 per cent. How could a company be privatised if that is the case? It would take a lot of mathematical calculations to figure it out. On Second Stage the question arose of the golden share and of how it will stand up in Europe. Can the Minister confidently say that he does not have any worries in that regard and that it will stand up? It is important that it does.

There are two subsections — (a) and (b) — in amendment No. 2. Will we have two separate votes, if necessary, or will they be taken together? There has not been a reference to subsection (b).

Subsection (b) says that the Minister shall retain 15 per cent of the equitable shares for the beet growers and for the employees of the company. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the breakdown in this regard? Will it be 15 per cent for each of them or will it to 10 per cent and 5 per cent or 8 per cent and 7 per cent? To whom will the different percentages apply?

I certainly could not support subsection (a), that the Minister shall retain 51 per cent of the holding company because that would mean overall State control which would be contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill. I have no compunction about saying that I would much prefer to see a board of directors running a public company instead of having the Department of Finance in the driving seat. It would be much better to see a group of people, who understand the industry and who are capable of running it, with overall control. The whole thing would be sterile and useless if we maintain the situation which pertained in the past.

I asked a question when we were discussing the previous amendment and the Minister said he would answer it when we were discussing this one. The question was in relation to the amount of the shareholding which will initially be invested in the Minister for Finance and how that shareholding will decline as years go by. What does he envisage the value of the company would be if they were floated on the Stock Exchange today? One financial correspondent in, I think, the Irish Independent said the Bill was being introduced in the Dáil today — he is about one month behind time.

What would be the value of the company on the Stock Exchange? Has that value been affected in any way by the overall decline in the Stock Exchange over the past six or eight months? I note a very positive change in the trend of prices on the Stock Exchange in the past couple of weeks. They are returning to previous levels. Will that have any effect on the flotation value? Can the Minister give us any estimate? How much of that money will be paid back into the Exchequer to compensate the Exchequer for the money loaned to the company over the years? How much of that money will be retained by the Exchequer to offset the national debt and how much will be reinvested to promote a vibrant and new horticultural industry?

Deputy Deasy asked about the procedure in putting Deputy Kavanagh's amendment No. 2. The amendment will be put in its entirety, including paragraphs (a) and (b) to which the Deputy referred. The question will be: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand". Is that clear?

I am glad, Sir, you have clarified that for Deputy Deasy because I suspect he would like to vote for the populist part of the amendment but of course cannot vote for what he agrees with which is the major thrust of Deputy Kavanagh's amendment. One either supports the retention of control of this company in Irish hands and directed by the Irish Government or one does not. One might like to give some of the shares to the beet growers and the workers because it is included in the amendment, but one cannot do that unless one supports the earlier part of the amendment.

Was that the position on Second Stage also?

I am disappointed at the Fine Gael stance on this because I consider the Bill to be tantamount to a betrayal of the national interest. I cannot for the life or me see, from reading the Minister's Second Stage speech or anything he has said so far, how he can justify selling such a key, strategic company currently in Irish hands. The arguments we have heard simply do not stand up. One cannot do the kind of house keeping exercise Deputy Deasy invites us to contemplate — he referred to this so-called drain on the taxpayer as if it was the most serious crime — or take this in isolation from the economic significance of the company. Deputy Garland made a fair point and Deputy Deasy knows this; 2,000 workers have lost their jobs in the Irish Sugar Company. What do they represent? They represent at least a £20 million drain on the Exchequer in terms of tax foregone and the obligation to pay them social welfare, apart from the infrastructural role and social dimension of the company throughout the country. One cannot take in isolation the fact that investment had to be raised from the State and put into this company to help them stand on their own.

I support Deputy Kavanagh's amendment for the same reason he advanced, not for any ideological reasons. They are a State company. Despite obstacles put in their way at various stages, they are a State company who have played a key role in the Irish economy and have overcome adversity in recent times to present themselves with the kind of balance sheet they have today. The managing director of that company makes the point that he will need additional capital in order to expand the company, to diversify into related areas in order to create more employment. I am all in favour of that, and if he requires additional capital then that capital should be provided by the State with no apologies. I will tell Deputy Deasy and the Minister why.

I caught a glimpse last night of Deputy Deasy's leader, Deputy John Bruton, on TV and heard him argue that Irish industrial policy is a costly failure and suggesting a shift in emphasis and so on. Of course, he is right. We have spent on average about £800 million per annum through the IDA and other agencies to attract foreign industry. It is essential that we continue to attract foreign industry, but alone it has not provided jobs for our people. What is so sacred about the £800 million that it cannot be diverted into one of our major, significant companies? Why is there this automatic block on that being done?

State companies certainly swallowed up a great deal of taxpayers' capital in the past. It was willingly given out although there were major structural difficulties in some of the companies. There were deficiencies and featherbedding resulting in part from canvassing of politicians to get jobs for people where there were not jobs. Of course there were inefficiencies but one goes from that extreme to the extreme of taking up the policy position that, no matter what the argument, no matter what the company, and no matter what the economic case made, the Government are not going to provide another shilling of public equity for expansion purposes in any State company. I cannot understand the swing from one end of the barometer where dubious investments were made in the past to a situation that, no matter what case can be made, the sacred principle with the new Coalition Government is that they will advance no capital.

Having regard to our experience in the food industry, the fact that we are talking about our major natural resource as the raw material, that the private sector has not managed to develop it sufficiently, and that the major investment decision taken in recent years — the Goodman Plan — collaspsed, why not take the other significant indigenous Irish company who are there and allow them to expand, develop and diversify? That is the opportunity Deputy Kavanagh's amendment seeks to retain for us, the Irish people, through the Government. If we retain 51 per cent of the holding in this company we retain control and we give an Irish Government at any stage in the future the sovereignty and authority to take what decisions considered to be in the best interests of the Irish people and of job creation at home. Otherwise we are not going to retain that control. I invite the Minister to address the question again and to assure us that through the use of the golden share that is going to be the case. I do not accept that that is going to be the case. Control is going to pass out of our hands on this.

The experience I referred to on Second Stage of Britoil and Jaguar in the UK tends to show that the golden share alone is an insufficient mechanism to rely on. I do not know at this stage whether the golden share will be deemed contrary to EC competition law. There has been no finding on that yet but it may well prove to be the case. In moving the amendment Deputy Kavanagh referred to the position in British Telecom. We cannot rely on the use of the golden share to retain control for us. Meanwhile, control of a major Irish indigenous food company is passing out of our control.

I do not know if the Minister for Agriculture and Food talks to his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but it was my understanding that there was general agreement in the House. This has been underlined by the belated publication of the triennial report on industrial performance. The publication of that report underlined the emerging consensus in this House that our existing industrial policy is a costly failure and that it is not providing the jobs we need.

Here we have a major State company which we can develop as we think fit and we want to sell it off. It is a tragedy, a betrayal of the national interest. The Government cannot defend it. We will regret it in the future. I do not understand how Fianna Fáil, having regard to their traditional position on State companies up to the 1987 general election, where The Taoiseach felt compelled to give the general secretary of Congress an undertaking that they would not undermine our major State commercial companies, could now do a complete turnabout from that position and decide to sell this company off, saving that it is only the first of many.

I would take up what Deputy Deasy said, because he does not have a position on this. He secretly agrees with the Government. The Deputy started to ask a number of incidental questions.

There is no secret. I am supporting the Government.

I know he is; and he should be over there with them.

I am told that the Deputy should be there as he is from a Fine Gael background.

(Interruptions.)

The answer to that is that nobody is perfect. Deputy Deasy raised a question about the flotation at this time and in these circumstances. The Minister should address that. All the advice the Government are getting is that they could not possibly have picked a worse time for this flotation and that the company is likely to achieve a third of what would have been achieved a little more than a year ago if the company had been floated then. I cannot see why the Government are so determined in such unpropitious circumstances to proceed with this flotation. It may well be that the equity markets have risen in the last few weeks, but the fact is that they have fallen back about one-third over recent months. I do not see why we should want to sell a valuable public asset for a song.

What impact will £50 million or £60 million have in the context of a national debt of £25 billion? At best it will amount to about a penny in the £ taxation for taxpayers if used for that purpose, and the Government say it will not be used for that purpose. All the reasons and arguments make the case for supporting Deputy Kavanagh's amendment. If the Government feel compelled for some reason they have not logically explained, to sell off shares in this company, the amendment which would see a majority stake being held in Irish hands should be adopted to ensure public control over such an important company in the future.

A number of points and observations have been made, some of which are wildly inaccurate and attempt to distort the position. I must correct some of the misstatements and I will then deal with the issue we are addressing here. We are not proposing in this legislation to privatise Siúicre Éireann; we are not proposing, as Deputy Rabbitte just said, to sell off a valuable public asset for a song. If Deputies want to address their comments to what we are doing here, that is fair enough.

A rose by any other name——

Deputy Garland actually disagreed with what Deputy Kavanagh proposes in retaining 51 per cent of the shares. He would require the State to retain 100 per cent.

Let us now go into a cul-de-sac.

I will not go into a cul-de-sac. Deputy Garland is a Member of this House just as Deputy Rabbitte is, and I am entitled to answer every point made. There is no special privilege attaching to Deputy Rabbitte.

On Second Stage, all the Minister did was answer peripheral points; he did not answer any of the important points.

Deputy Rabbitte, I will have to ask you to contain your irritation and frustration and listen to the Minister and whoever else is in order.

I listened to the Deputy. When the Deputy talks about national betrayal——

Betrayal of national interest.

——clearly that expression, coming from Deputy Rabbitte or anyone from The Workers' Party is not intended as an effort to have reasonable debate or discussion. The Workers' Party are a lot better qualified to speak about betrayal of national interest than anyone in this Government.

What is that supposed to mean?

The Deputy can interpret that exactly as he wishes.

It is meaningless polemics.

If the Deputy is going to accuse this Government of betrayal of national interest, in his history——

The Minister should look at his own history.

——his origins and his position, he is well qualified to analyse——

This is all nonsense. Deal with the Bill.

The Deputy introduced that pejorative term here. If the Deputy wants to engage in that kind of abuse he should at least recognise that he is well qualified to do so. I will now deal with the issues.

I am a lot better qualified than the Minister, having regard to the arguments he has made so far.

Please refrain, in the interests of an objective discussion, from using that kind of collective pejorative condemnation, in which The Workers' Party are much better qualified than anybody else in this House.

What is being proposed is partial privatisation, not the selling off of a valuable public asset for a song. I would oppose that as vigorously, and perhaps more vigorously, than Deputy Rabbitte. I suspect that Members of Fine Gael would also oppose that. That is not what we are doing, and I do not accept what those who want to undermine us are doing by trying to create the wrong impression among the public. They will not be allowed to distort reality. Apart from the special share, the Articles and Memorandum of Association ensure that no one interest or consortium may acquire more than 15 per cent of the shareholding in the new holding company. I would have to tell those who pretend, for the purposes of their ideological arguments or hangups, that it is not there; that guarantee is there. Nobody will, as they put it, get their mitts on this company or take it over holus bolus.

It makes no difference in terms of control and the Minister knows that. That is the point.

Deputy Rabbitte; I will not address Deputy Rabbite again. If he continues to interrupt I will have to ask him to leave the House.

With regard to the suggestion that this is inappropriate at this time, since this company was launched, Fianna Fáil in Government have shown a total and vigorous commitment to this company and others. When this company was first established in the thirties the circumstances were different from those which exist today. There was a necessary period of protectionism here to support the infant industries of Ireland. There was no native capital or entrepreneurship or capacity in the international markets. It was a different world and a different time. Companies such as this one were set up specifically to supply what could not be supplied by the private sector. No one in that sector had the expertise or the market familiarity which are so vitally important. We are now 60 years on and the reality is that it is the markets, and not protection, which are going to determine the success of any enterprise, be it private or State.

There has been a welcome turnaround in the affairs of the company during the past two years: They have returned to profitability for the first time in many years, and the House should unite in welcoming this. I should point out to Deputy Rabbitte, and I know that Deputy Deasy is conscious of this, that this turnaround was not achieved without massive contributions during the years from the taxpayer about whom we are all concerned. Deputy Rabbitte made the point that over £800 million has been made available by the IDA to companies setting up here but I should point out to him that during the years £65.5 million has been provided to Siúicre Éireann by the taxpayer and £59 million of this was contributed in the eighties alone by both administrations. Given their track record the company feel very confident, and I believe the workers also, that with new partners, ventures and opportunities in the internal market that they can get involved in a new range of activities in the food industry, under the new State holding company that I have mentioned, Greencore, and realise their full potential which they would not be able to do if they continued to be exclusively State-controlled and dependent on the taxpayer constantly providing more money. At some stage the Labour Party and The Workers' Party are going to have to square their own circle. Yes, we want more money for the health service, social welfare, education and all the other social priorities——

And housing.

Of course, and for roads, but at the same time we would still have to say to the taxpayer that he must continue to put more money in when the reality is that if we adopt this new, unique and dynamic approach we can attract the markets to participate, thus generating more funds both for the company and the taxpayer, while bringing about a situation where, sooner rather than later, we can start reducing the level of taxation about which the Labour Party and The Workers' Party and all other parties are concerned. You cannot square the circle——

What about employment?

As the Deputy well knows, other countries in eastern Europe tried to have the total state way, totalitarianism in every form——

I did not argue for that. I do not want another sanctimonious lecture.

I am sorry but you want to retain State control. I have had to listen to a lot of——

I do not want another sanctimonious lecture.

Could we apply ourselves to the Committee Stage debate as it should be? If one Deputy strays the Chair will endeavour to keep him in order.

Eastern Europe would be far more interesting.

Would Deputy Deasy please bear with me? The Chair was about to say that what we have been hearing is probably more in keeping with a salt and vinegar debate than one dealing with sugar. Could we apply ourselves to what is in the legislation——

Taytos; fish and chips.

——and what is in the amendment? If any Deputy strays from that the Chair will endeavour to bring him back.

Taytos; fish and chips.

—— and what is in the amendment? If any Deputy strays from that the Chair will endeavour to bring him back.

I was replying to comments made on the salt mines before you came into the House, and I felt it was appropriate to reply to them.

I was asked what percentage the Minister for Finance will hold following the flotation, and the answer is 45 per cent. I should also point out that the company will raise additional capital through rights issues and the Minister will have the option of increasing his holding to maintain that 45 per cent. That is a very important element of the legislation. We do not want to put any restriction, in terms of their market capacity, on the new holding company. We want to answer that the holding of the Minister for Finance can be adjusted and this is without reference to the protection which exists by way of the special share. The taking up of rights at a particular time will depend on the circumstances obtaining at that time. Deputy Sherlock suggested — and I want to put this out of court immediately — that we would lose our 200,000 tonnes quota——

Can the Minister guarantee it?

——but I should make it clear to him that I and my party in Government would not want me to introduce this legislation if there was any remote risk that this could happen. It is not reasonable or appropriate for Deputy Sherlock when discussing this subject to throw that red herring across at me or for Deputy Rabbitte to suggest that we are selling the whole thing for a song. We have no proposal or intention to dispose of our 200,000 tonnes quota. In case there might be any doubt about it I want to make it quite clear — we will deal with this on the next section — that the special share which will remain with the Minister for Agriculture and Food has been included to guarantee that the quota cannot be disposed of. I do not need to take issue with any of the arguments on just how important the quota is; it is a huge resource and is like a national milk quota in the hands of one. I do not want to see that national quota being lost to the country. That is the reason I have included a special provision in this legislation to ensure that it cannot happen. What we are doing here is getting the balance right. We are going for partnership, with support from the markets, on the basis of very secure State involvement without affecting the management of a company who have proved themselves to be very vigorous in recent times.

Let me mention in that connection that turnover for the year ended September 1990 was £271 million. That was the best performance achieved by this firm as a State company. The one thing that should be remembered is that the company are confident that in the new venture they can do much better. Let us look at two other food companies in Ireland who are not in receipt of one penny from the taxpayer — the Kerry Group and Avonmore. Both of those have turnovers well in excess of the figure reached by Siúicre Éireann with the input of very considerable State funding. I am not trying to denigrate what Siúicre Éireann have done but merely demonstrating that those companies who are free to go to the markets to seek participation, which is what Siúicre Éireann want to be able to do as part of the Greencore operation, have shown that there is huge potential for Irish food companies. I want the State-involved company to be in the same position to go out vigorously and confidently to do the same thing. I want to see the same level of growth and security for employees and beet growers. We are all concerned that the taxpayer should receive a dividend, that the workers are guaranteed and the markets sustained. I hope this clears up the real issues.

God is in his Heaven.

There is a God.

The Minister did not reply to some questions about the likely value of the company when floated on the Stock Exchange. I do not expect the Minister to be absolutely accurate but perhaps he could give some estimate. Deputy Rabbitte said it would be sold off for a song. Business interests who have a knowledge of the market tell me that the recession in the stock market will not make much difference, if any. The Minister might confirm or deny that and give us some figure. How much of the money raised will go back to the Exchequer in compensation for money given over the years to the company? How much of that money will be retained within the Exchequer for other purposes and how much will be reinvested in the horticultural industry? It was clearly stated on Second Stage that the idea was to raise money on the Stock Exchange so that the company could be expanded and we could reduce annual imports of vegetables and fruit which could be produced at home. The value of such imports is in the region of £200 million or £250 million.

It is not possible for me to give an estimate of the value and it would not be appropriate. I understand the Deputy's interest, which I share. The response from the markets will determine the value. I do not want to engage in a guessing game. The advice we have is that the attitude of the market towards the new holding company is very positive. What Deputy Rabbitte is suggesting is not the case. Indications are that the market response will be very positive indeed. Beyond that I do not think I should go. The range of figures talked about would move towards the more optimistic rather than the lower order. Regarding the disposal of the funds raised, the Deputy will appreciate that this arises under another section. Among the purposes underlying this move is to ensure that the taxpayer, the company, the workers and the beet growers will all be in a better position. We will relieve the taxpayer of a burden. That is still the Government's intention.

What section deals with it?

I understand Deputy Garland has an amendment to it.

I thank Deputy Garland for his support on this amendment. I was completely with him in wanting 100 per cent of this company to be retained but we failed at Second Stage because Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats outnumber us in this House. That is a fact of life which I have to accept. The best compromise for the people working in the industry and the growers, as well as for the development of the industry in the national interest, would be for the State to retain 51 per cent, as specified in my amendment. That is also the reason I suggest 15 per cent should be reserved for the growers and employees. The Minister also believes that the people involved in the industry should hold part of the equity. I know discussions are going on between both those interests and we are leaving some flexibility to the Minister in this regard. The consultations between the trade union movement, the IFA and the Beet Growers' Association will work out a reasonable share. I am not suggesting that these shares should be handed out freely to employees and growers. They will have to pay for them but I expect there will be certain preferential treatment. I leave this to the wisdom and good sense of the people involved in the discussions. We will accept an assurance from the Minister on what is to happen in this area. Unfortunately in his reply he did not discuss that aspect.

I will deal with it later.

I was very disappointed in the Minister's reply. The best way to treat all concerned is to retain 51 per cent in State ownership to safeguard the national interest. The Minister says this is a partial privatisation. The part that is being privatised is what concerns me because I do not accept that the safeguards provided will enable the Government to retain control. The Minister states that no interest or consortium can hold more than 15 per cent of the shares but there could be several consortia or interests, each of which would hold 15 per cent. The Minister claims this is dealt with in the memorandum and articles of association. We are not discussing the memorandum and articles of association and I cannot table an amendment thereto. It need never come before the House. My concern is that we cannot tie down this Bill to ensure there will not be changes.

The Minister gave us a short history of this company set up 60 years ago when times were different and the State had to make up for the lack of incentive in the private sector. That is the history of the great public companies including the ESB, CIE and so on.

It was only four short years ago that the Taoiseach told us that position still held with regard to this company and to all the semi-State companies and they were safe with Fianna Fáil. I will remind the Minister that around that time he told the people of north Tipperary that the company in that area was safe in his hands. So that we do not have a Minister promising that things will be quite safe under his direction, whether it be Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or whoever, the best safeguard is to incorporate it in the Bill so that no matter what regime is in power or what changes take place in Ministries, the Bill can be referrd to. That is why I said the Minister's response was not only disappointing but did not allay any of the fears I had tried to present during the course of my presentation.

The Minister says he will hold a 45 per cent shareholding and will have an option to increase his holding to maintain that 45 per cent shareholding should the company expand their interests. However, it will still be 45 per cent but the "golden" or "special" share is the hope we have for maintaining control of the company. The Minister did not say, and this is where my suspicions and concerns lie, the "special" share can be changed, and has been changed, in Britain. I give the recent examples of Jaguar, British Telecom and National Freight Services. During my contribution on the introduction of the amendment I said that in the context of 1992 the provisions of the "golden" or "special" share may be found to be against Community rules by the European Court of Justice. If that happens where will we be then? The special share will not matter — the Minister did not comment on that, but I hope he will come back to that point again and assure us that what I am saying——

The reason I did not go into detail on the special share is that it is the subject of the next section and the amendments.

It is referred to in this section as well.

That is the only reason I did not refer to it.

I know the Minister has tabled an amendment so I will leave it at that and we can discuss it then.

The Minister demonstrated the success of the co-ops in the private sector — how they developed and expanded and the level of profit they have achieved simply because they were in the private sector. However, I think what has happened within the public sector Sugar Company over the past four years is phenomenal indeed and has certainly shown that dynamic direction, a good board, a first class workforce and good supplies can make all the difference to a viable company. The Sugar Company are getting back on their feet into making profits. By various means of raising funds to achieve their hopes and aspirations, whether by joint venture or otherwise, there are all sorts of options open to the company besides the simple option of selling part of the company to meet their equity requirements.

Bord na Móna, a semi-State company are in considerable trouble. The method used to finance Bord na Móna is now causing problems and is hampering their efforts to turn around the company. These are the debts that have to be paid which grew up during bad times. Money was thrown into the company and interest accrued, the company which now has a great product and dynamic direction, is being hamstrung trying to pay the interest on the debt.

The decision has been made to sell off B & I. What did the Minister do about their debt? He decided to write off all £20 million or £30 million and then hands the company over to the private sector. That would certainly solve the problems of companies that are tied by historic debts when they try to keep the company afloat in bad times. The only way the company could raise money was through the banks. The sugar company are also trying to get out of the debt they got into some years ago.

Ideology aside, the sugar company is one of the food companies that cannot be bought by a multinational. The Minister told us how succesful the co-operatives are, but they can be bought by multinationals because their membership can make the decision. If the Minister is saying that under the provisions of this Bill the Sugar Company will be in a similar position to the co-operative, then he is saying that at some time in the future an international food combine could buy a very considerable share of the Sugar Company, in fact, several could each buy 15 per cent of the shareholding.

I am far from convinced by the Minister's proposals in this section, which is the key section. I hope the Minister will accept that what I am saying is in good faith. I think the Minister's proposals have caused concern to people who are interested in keeping the company in Irish hands rather than allaying their fears that the company is saved, because from what the Minister has said today it certainly is not.

The Minister made no statement in his reply which would allay the fears that have been expressed if more than 51 per cent of the shares are held other than by the State, that the Minister can guarantee the security of our sugar quota. If the Minister could assure us that our sugar quota was safe, that would be fair enough——

Absolutely.

——but there is no question that he has done that. I am quite sure that if this question had been taken on board by the Minister or by those drafting the Bill we would not now have subsections 2 (3) and 2 (4). Section 2 (3) states:

The Minister, or his nominees may hold for as long as he thinks fit shares in the Holding Company...

and section 2 (4) states:

The Minister for Agriculture and Food or his nominees, following consultation with the Minister, may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, dispose of by redemption or otherwise, in accordance with the Memorandum and Articles of Association...

Why were these matters not taken into consideration when drafting the Bill? The Minister referred to the £56 million equity capital which was put in by the State, but the company's labour saving profits were secured profits in 1984-85 — it cost £48,000 for each job destroyed — and the company's investment yielded a return of £20 million last year, an increase on the previous year's profits of £2 million.

From 1984-85 to 1986 the company, because of political expediency, retained Tuam sugar factory which cost in excess of £13 million, and the same applied to Thurles. When we eventually came to rationalisation, we saw a further delay. Since the State invested in the company it must be encouraging to see that the company bought a one-third share in James Budget and Sons, the second largest sugar wholesalers in the UK. Is that not a clear indication that the company on their own were going places at that time? They bought a controlling interest in the edible oils manufacturer, James Daly, and acquired a half share in Odlums. They also, through something that should never have happened, had to buy back their interest in Sugar Distributors. A couple of years ago the Sugar Company manufactured sugar from the production of beet on our land and then control of sugar distribution went into private hands. That was rectified a few years ago and the company now have control of Sugar Distributors Limited as well. Does all this not indicate that the Sugar Company are a viable company who, through their own investment and State investment, made such progress in broadening and consolidating their base over the last couple of years? Why then is it necessary to sell off more than 51 per cent of the shares of this company?

Paragraph (2) (b) of amendment No. 2 reads:

The Minister shall retain 15 per cent of the equity shares for the beet growers and for the employees of the company.

How do we know that the employees of the company are interested? I have had meetings with the employees of the company and discussed a proposal of the company that emanated from the Department of Finance. The fact is employees cannot afford to buy shares. How can they? From mid-January until the end of June employees are on a 39 hour week. There is no way they can afford to buy shares. The Minister for Finance intends to offer each qualifying employee approximately £250 worth of free shares. The company have made representations to try to have them tax free, but were advised that they will be seen as an element of employment and therefore will be taxable. The present attitude of the employees or the general body of workers in the factory is that they cannot afford a shareholding. If the Minister wants to know what they think at the moment, they have no confidence that there is any future for them in the sugar industry.

It is most extraordinary that the Minister for Agriculture and Food came into this House last week on the Second Stage debate and twice referred to Greenvale as the name of the new company. The Minister did not realise that Greenvale plc, is a subsidiary of the Irish Sugar Company. As a matter of fact, the issue was raised quite recently——

I was doing that on the advice of the Sugar Company at the time and subsequently — there is no great mystique to it — the Sugar Company decided they wanted to go ahead with the name Greencore.

Greenvale was already a subsidiary of the Sugar Company so we wanted to run away from that in case those whom we want to invest would be frightened off by it. Let us say that at present an issue has been raised in regard to Dairygold putting dairy nuts into the Greenvale bags and disposing of them under Greenvale which is a subsidiary of the Sugar Company.

Some years ago it was necessary to bring to the attention of the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Lenihan, the fact that a new company had come into Little Island in Cork. I said this on Second Stage, and I will repeat it. That company, which is about the sixth largest in the world — Ferucci, an Italian company manufacturing a sweetener from wheat — at that time got the support of Ceimicí Teoranta and the Minister for Industry and Commerce had not consulted with the Minister for Agriculture. In that area of Cork we had a company manufacturing a sweetener which was a threat to the Sugar Company at the time. It had to be restricted and I am glad to say that having made the effort when I was in the Dáil in 1982 to get the then chief executive officer, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce around the table, some effort was made to restrict the amount of activity that company could engage in. It was a threat to the Irish sugar industry because it was in the sweetener business.

How can the Minister justify selling off more than 51 per cent of the shares of the company at this tme when it is already expanding its role, when it has already shown that it is a viable company, when it has been rationalised at the behest of the Government and when the consequence would be that he could not guarantee that the sugar quota which has been referred to as being so vital to the economy of this country can be protected? Any group holding the majority shareholding, if they can import sugar cheaper than it is being manufactured here, will very likely do that and there will be nothing in this legislation to stop them doing it.

Could I ask the house to consider that perhaps we have refined our thoughts sufficiently on this amendment? There are other amendments.

This is the key amendment. You can have it after that.

There are subsequent amendments on the same section and we will be discussing the section too. The Chair will have to insist that we confine ourselves to what is in the amendment and not stray into fields, here, there and everywhere.

I take the point that there are subsequent amendments which address the issue of the special share, and I will be very happy to address that when we reach it. For the moment I will confine myself to the issue that is relevant to the second part of Deputy Kavanagh's amendment.

I am very much in sympathy with the principle enshrined in Deputy Kavanagh's amendment. I have already indicated in discussions with union representatives and the beet growers' representatives not only my readiness but my determination to ensure that they could have participation in the equity of Greencore, not just because of the representations made today, but because of my confidence in the contribution they can make in the future. I am privileged to be the first Minister of this Government to ask, in the confident knowledge that I will get it, for the support of the House for provisions that will provide special equity shareholding for both workers and beet growers.

There are discussions going on between the trade unions and the company. Some matters are emerging. At the same time the House will appreciate that it is not appropriate to specifically write into the legislation actual amounts or details of how the special equity preferred participation will be made available. I should like to inform Deputy Kavanagh and the House that we will be making provision on the advice and recommendations of the Government. I have met the ICTU and also the beet growers and have indicated to them that we would want to see such preference being made available. I am glad to say that the dividends will not be subject to taxation when the matter is finally worked out. The company are prepared — and this is part of the issue — to make loans available to the workforce to acquire the shares at 10 per cent — and, as Deputies will be aware, 10 per cent is very much less than the going rate at present — and the interest on the loan will be tax deductible. This is a very definite indication to recognise the contribution the workers have made and which, no doubt, they will make in the future. I have not gone into the details of the amount because it would not be appropriate as it is still a matter between the company, the workers and the unions but those special arrangements demonstrate clearly that the special preference will give the workers participation at a preferential rate.

I should like to say to Deputy Sherlock that I would be surprised and disappointed if the workers who have built up the company in partnership and who have a great capacity to build up the company in future in partnership, and who have been given this opportunity were to say: "We are not interested, we do not want to have any part in this new dynamic".

They may not vote for it.

They will, especially having regard to the terms I have just quoted but I do not want to go into specific detals. It is not my information that they have neither an interest nor can they afford it. The impressions I have are very different and they greatly welcome——

They are into a shareholding democracy.

Everything this Government does proves we are interested in the shareholding democracy. Our Programme for Economic and Social Progress is a partnership with the trade unions and employers. The same principle is coming across here. It is important that I would make one other observation, lest there be a doubt — though it is not immediately relevant — because Deputy Sherlock made the comment that the fact that workers are in the same position to get as big, healthy and vigorous as the co-operatives means they can be taken up by the multinationals. The co-operatives to which I have referred, far from being swallowed up by the multinationals, are very vigorously in the takeover trade themselves.

It is not just in Ireland but it could be in Germany, France or America and I expect to visit the latter over the St. Patrick's Day period. Much of my time during that period will be spent visiting the actual developments, acquisitions and expansions of the co-operatives concerned in the United States. It is important that the Irish people know that. Deputy Sherlock may have got the impression that we are being swallowed up by others but I am anxious to demonstrate that we are in an era now where we will be confident, vigorous and competitive enough to go out and do some of the swallowing up ourselves, which is precisely what is happening with the companies to which I have referred. I have no doubt that Greencore can do exactly the same. That is why this is a very important step. I hope the assurances I have given Deputy Kavanagh on the precise points demonstate my support for the principle he wants to enshrine in the legislation. Equally, I must tell him I have been advised that it is inappropriate to make specific provision in legislation of the kind he refers to but it is a matter of agreement between the company, the unions and the beet growers.

In relation to there being no liability to taxation I want to make it clear that the discounted elements of the shares will not be subject to taxation; the dividends in the normal course will be subject to taxation.

When the Minister is on his trip to America he should see the chairman of the Sugar Company's ventures in California where he has been building cheese factories for the last ten years. The Minister might learn something.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister may enjoy himself.

I will not be going that far.

The Minister has notified the House of his intentions for St. Patrick's weekend and I have no doubt he will work hard on behalf of the agricultural industry. If this section were accepted the Minister would retain 51 per cent of the total equity shares in the company. That would run contrary to the purpose of the Bill and would negative its effect. It is my view that the company have been spancelled, stymied and stifled from taking their own initiatives and, as a result, during the years they have gone into decay and have not reached their full potential. In relation to the shares, the Minister will be conscious of the fact that the workers, in partnership with the management of the company, have brought about whatever success they have achieved and they are the principal people to be looked after under the provisions of this Bill.

In regard to people who have given a lifetime of dedicated service to the company, to those who were made redundant prematurely or who lost employment through no fault of their own, is there any provision to give them preference in the purchase of equity shares? A number of these people would have redundancy money and would be in a position to purchase those shares. I am sure the Minister is conscious of the fact that there are many such people in Thurles and in Tuam. I am aware from discussions with him that they have an affinity with the company which they would like to retain. This would be a major gesture and would compensate them in some small way for the trauma they have suffered. I am aware that negotiations are still taking place at this late stage but can the Minister outline the broad principle of the breakdown of the percentage shares, for example, what percentage is being set aside for the growers and what percentage is being set aside for the workers?

The last point distinguishes our position on this Bill. I sympathise with Deputy Lowry when he asks that the share option be made available to the redundant former workers of the Sugar Company. I have no quibble with that. The first thing that should be made available to the Sugar Company workers is jobs. My main point in this argument is that the Sugar Company could be used as a vehicle for job creation and I do not think the Minister has addressed the question of control. This is the critical amendment, with the next amendment from my colleague, Deputy Sherlock. After that, we can debate the niceties of it for as long as we like. The important point is that we are dealing with the question of whether control will be retained in Irish hands through the Irish Government of the day. Deputy Kavanagh's amendment is critical.

From the arguments I have heard him make, the Minister has apparently decided not to address that question. He drew analogies with successful companies in the food sector such as the Kerry group and Avonmore. Nobody on this side of the House has any quibble with that. They are successful companies and my only regret is that there are not more of them. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that we are letting control of this indigenous company in State ownership who have trimmed themselves and are capable of identifying opportunities in the market, to industrialise agriculture and create jobs, pass away.

The Minister said this was not what was being done, that it was not privatisation and was only part privatisation. He suggested we are ignoring his 15 per cent ceiling. The Minister knows that control of any company around the boardroom does not operate that way. A 15 per cent ceiling has nothing to do with how control is exercised in a practical manner in terms of any corporate decision. It does not impact on it at all. The Minister knows that in some critical decision those who are calling the tune financially will put it to him with his minority stake that he calls a golden share, that this is the way they want to go. He will have to dance to that tune; he will have no alternative.

Like Deputy Deasy, the Minister seems to make a virtue of the importance of getting this company off the back of the taxpayer, how they can do different things and will not be any burden on the taxpayer. He went back to the origins of the Sugar Company to justify that position and said times have changed. I want to point out to the Minister that even if he were to take it much later than that, there are fewer people employed in manufacturing now than there were at the beginning of industrialisation in this country in the sixties. That is the issue. We can make the Sugar Company trim and slim but how many people will be employed by them? They may not be a drain on the taxpayer but, as Deputy Kavanagh pointed out the problem with many public enterprises is the debt-equity ratio. The debt-equity ratio has always been so punitive that repayment of the debt schedule for public companies was such that it strangled their possibilities to diversify or develop. That debt-equity ratio was wrong in the case of the Sugar Company.

Even though it is now envisaged that no more taxpayers' money will be put into this company I wonder what the position is in regard to the other side of the equation, employment. Taxpayers are already paying an enormous amount of money in attempts to create jobs. We have a ready made vehicle which could be exploited for that purpose. I should like to ask the Minister why he was so enthusiastic, with his Cabinet colleagues, to pledge an inordinate amount of State money and priority preference lines of credit to, for example, the Goodman operation? Presumably he did this because he saw it as a possibility to develop the agricultural sector and create jobs in the beef sector in particular. I presume that is the reason he did this. I am not imputing any other reasons to the Minister. I do not want to get into the kind of exchange we had earlier because I know how sensitive the Minister is in terms of his personal integrity. The rest of us in this House are all very venal but the Minister is perfect.

The Deputy made an allegation about me which he has never withdrawn.

His slightly constitutional party are also perfect.

Deputy Rabbitte, I ask you to confine yourself to what is in the amendment which to me has been done to death——

The Sugar Company are being done to death.

——by a continuation of speakers who are being repetitious and now moving into the beef area. Let us confine ourselves to sugar.

I insist——

I shall call the Minister later.

Deputy Rabbitte has made an allegation about me which is totally false, and he knows it. He has never had the grace to withdraw it——

I have the floor, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I will give the Minister an opportunity to reply presently. Deputy Rabbitte on the amendment, please.

The point I am making on the amendment is that if we are prepared to put money into, for example, the Goodman experiment in the food sector why should we have such a hang-up about putting money into the company we own on behalf of the Irish people? That is a very pertinent point and I should like to hear the Minister's views on it. If we are prepared to use taxpayers' money to develop private industry why are we shying away from putting taxpayers' money into the Sugar Company to allow them to develop? That question has not been addressed.

Deputy Kavanagh assured us that the motivation behind his amendment is not ideological, but I believe the purpose of the Government in privatising this company is ideological. It is not so long ago since the Taoiseach denied here the public statements made by the chairman of the Progressive Democrats outside the House about the number of public enterprises which were to be sold off during the term of office of the Government. The Taoiseach and other Ministers pooh-poohed those statements but we can now see that they are true. We have already dealt with Irish Life and now it is Irish Sugar. The decision has been made in principle in the case of the B & I and it only has to be put through this House and there is ICC. The tail is wagging the dog. It is an ideological question not an economic one.

I never thought I would see the day when Fianna Fáil, who claim to recognise and foster the role the State sector played in the development of this economy, would be won over by the arguments of Mr. Michael McDowell who does not even sit in this House. This will be to the detriment of Irish workers and that is why I used the phrase, "betrayal of the national interest". Even a substantial wing of the Tory Party in Britain have described privatisation as selling off the family silver. Basically this is what we are doing here because control will pass out of our hands into the hands of whatever combination that develops when the market takes up the shares in question.

I am not impressed by the Minister's sweetner about how he can come into this House as the first Minister to give shares at preference prices to workers in a State company. My God, should we all be thankful to him for selling off a company owned by the Irish people in the name of the Minister for Finance and enabeling the Minister to make a small portion of the shares available at preferential rates to workers and beet growers? Should we all bow the knee and say, what a generous far-sighted Minister he is,——

Who said that?

——the first Minister of any Government to come here to do this? The least I would expect is that the workers who played such a major part in developing the Irish Sugar Company down through the years would have some preferential options when the flotation takes place. I do not feel like giving the Minister any credit for doing this.

No, the Deputy would not.

The Minister presents this proposal as if he was the major shareholder in the Sugar Company and he was allowing the rest of the workforce around Thurles to participate in the O'Kennedy enterprise. That is not the way I see it. The company are vested in the Irish people and that is the least I would expect.

Times may very well have changed but the biggest problem still facing us is the creation of jobs for our people. Yesterday morning Fine Gael tried to have the House adjourned so that we could debate the latest unemployment figures. Only six weeks ago it was predicted in the budget that the level of unemployment would be 228,000. There are now 245,000 people unemployed. That is what this argument is about. It is not about some technical arrangement on the Stock Exchange; it is about a vehicle that is capable of creating jobs.

If it is about that point, you have made it. Why keep labouring it?

I hope I have made it with equal impact on the Minister as I obviously have on you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I shall not repeat it.

I did not get that impression. If you would allow us to proceed with what is in the amendment, and dispose of the amendment, I would be grateful. There are other amendments to be dealt with and other roads to travel.

I stand corrected, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I shall do that, but allow me to conclude. The example we seem to be following is that of our neighbouring island. I would like to refer briefly to an assessment of that in The Irish Times of 18 April 1990. A financial commentator in a major article on privatisation in the British experience make the following point:

The winner from privatisation in the UK where those who bought the shares well below market prices the management of the newly privatised companies, financial institutions, professional advisers and the Government. The losers are less visible, being the general taxpayers, and workers in the companies.

That commentator gave examples of 12 State companies in drawing that conclusion. He said:

An examination of the UK privatisation programme shows that there were far greater efficiency gains in public enterprises prior to privatisation than since, and the remaining public enterprises outperformed private industry as a whole on a number of criteria. The transformation of public sector monopolies into private ones has not led to the expected improvements in services, but to higher profits at the expense of the consumer.

We have seen that, for example, in British Telecom to which Deputy Kavanagh referred. The consumer is getting a worse deal, a more expensive deal.

I cannot see an argument on economic grounds. If the Minister has such an argument I would plead with him to at least put it on the record of the House because that is the only argument that makes sense. If the Minister has an argument on economic grounds that justifies defeating Deputy Kavanagh's amendment, that is allowing control of the Sugar Company to pass out of Irish hands, it should be put on the record of the House.

I would ask the Minister to resist any temptation to refer to anything other than what is before us.

I can assure you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will do that, but in the interests of the company there are certain statements I have to correct. Deputy Rabbitte has again said we are selling off the Irish Sugar Company, but I want to totally and utterly reject that. It is false. It is not going to serve any purpose for Deputy Rabbitte to keep repeating that phrase. He knows quite well it is not true to say that the Sugar Company is being sold off. The second point relates to the attitude of the Sugar Company to what has been happening and what can be done in the markets. I am glad to record that the Sugar Company are very confident that in this new agreement we are proposing in this legislation they can grow and expand in the marketplace, they can move on an acquisition trail and they can demonstrate from the point of view of their management efficiency, marketing, worker capacity, the relationship between workers and company and the beet growers that they can do that.

I do not propose to accept that those who never wanted to acknowledge achievement should be allowed get away with saying that we will be swallowed up, that we will have to dance, as Deputy Rabbitte put it, to the tune of others. He would like to have that conveyed.

I dispute that vehemently.

That is what the Deputy has been saying. He said they would have to dance to the tune——

That is right.

I am glad to be able to tell the Deputy, whether or not he is glad to hear it, that they will not be dancing to anyone's tune.

Come on. Live in the real world.

The Deputy does not want to hear it. Deputy Rabbitte would like to have it conveyed——

That is what I dispute.

——that the new arrangements will not enable Greencore, with the contribution of management, workers and beet growers, to set a dynamic pattern of growth. The Deputy asked me for evidence and I will give it to him. When the Sugar Company were constrained by being totally State dependent, taxpayer dependent, the consequence we saw over the years since the seventies, before Deputy Rabbitte came into this House, was not expansion in employment, about which we are all concerned, but quite the opposite. In a period of about 15 years of total State dependency the numbers employed by the Sugar Company dropped by about 50 per cent, from about 3,000 to just over 1,500. If people want to see that pattern continue as a result of the company being prevented from developing a vigorous, dynamic marketing——

I do not want that.

That is what has happened, and the Deputy is insisting that we keep to the same old ways.

I am saying we should give them capital to diversify, and the Chair said he understood that point. Why is the Minister misrepresenting me?

Deputy Rabbitte, I said before, and I will say to you again, if you cannot contain yourself I will have to ask you to leave the House. You are disrupting the debate.

Is it in order that the Minister should misrepresent me? He is ascribing to me a stupid economic point of view which I vigorously dispute.

It is in order for the Minister to comment on what the Deputy said. The Deputy will have another opportunity to make a comment if he so desires.

I apologise.

You would not need to have great hearing to be of the opinion that these contributions are not helpful to the legislation.

I would like to respond to some points in Deputy Kavanagh's amendment and to Deputy Lowry but first I would like to reply to the second point made by Deputy Rabbitte. He implied that the Government are not prepared to put money into the company, but the facts quite clearly show the opposite is true. In the last decade the taxpayer, the Government, this Administration and the previous Administration have put £59 million into this company. That demonstrates that what Deputy Rabbitte suggested is not founded on fact. I am prepared to engage in discussion on this matter any time provided we adhere to the facts and we can draw whatever conclusions we like, but if we start from a false premise, we can draw any conclusion. I am not prepared to leave that false premise on the record. I would like to say very clearly that I can assure Deputy Rabbitte, and anybody else in the House who said we have been won over by the arguments of — I think he said — Deputy Michael McDowell——

I did not say that either. I said the Progressive Democrats. The Minister should see if he can pronounce Progressive Democrats.

Maybe he said the former Deputy Michael McDowell, but I want to assure Deputy Rabbitte that that voice is not the one that determines the decisions or policy of this Government——

You could have fooled me.

——or of this Minister. Let me assure the Deputy of that.

That will get a headline tonight.

While I might pay attention to what is being said in the House——

Say "Progressive Democrats" for the record.

——the policy of Government, of this Minister and of the main party in the Government, will not be determined by that voice.

Who are the main party?

The Deputy can take that——

Fianna Fáil are no longer the main party.

——as being certain. It is quite evident that the thrust and direction of the Bill is consistent with the thrust and direction of my party in Government over many years.

It is not.

Deputy Lowry made a precise and important suggestion, that those workers who, during the period of total State dependency of the company, had lost their jobs could perhaps pay for shares through their redundancy lump sum payments. There is a degree of persuasion in that argument, as those who were with the company over the years made a major contribution; I will put Deputy Lowry's suggestion to the company and the unions because, as the Deputy is aware, these matters are decided in consultation with the management and the unions and between the management and the beet growers. I cannot take a decision in regard to what should be done. I will ask the company to look at it as favourably as possible. That is the only other point of precision made in the course of the last contributions.

Precision?

There have been perorations and ideological hang-ups and, clearly, when the facts are presented to Deputy Rabbitte the sensitivity emerges and we get a response.

Does the Minister want me to make supine points?

I listened to Deputy Rabbitte without intervening. He does not have quite the same capacity.

For hypocrisy.

Deputy Rabbitte knows that he made a false allegation in this House in respect of me; he knows it, I brought it to his attention and he did not have the grace to withdraw it publicly.

I did not make a false allegation.

A man who does not have the capacity to do that should not be too sensitive——

Who is sensitive?

Will the Minister guarantee that there will be a sugar quota in this country in ten years' time?

Deputy Rabbitte should be man enough to come into this House and admit that he made a false allegation, that he now knows it was wrong and that he wishes to withdraw it. However, he does not have the capacity to do that.

I did not make a false allegation, I will deal with it in detail now. I know who is sensitive.

My integrity means at least as much to me as Deputy Rabbitte's integrity means to him.

I am glad that the Minister at least admits that.

The reason we are spending a great deal of time on this amendment is that it deals with a key section in the Bill. Not only that, the Minister said earlier on in his last peroration, as he described some of the speeches——

Not the Deputy's speech.

The Minister said that he was proud to introduce the first Bill to privatise a State company. That is what worries me; it is not simply this Bill we are discussing, we are discussing the possible privatisation of maybe a half dozen other semi-State companies. This will be a headline——

In the course of this debate, I did not use the term "privatisation" because it is not what is at issue.

Call a spade a spade; a rose by any other name.

If Deputy Kavanagh wants to use the term that is his business.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in his other professional occupation, I am sure was excellent at mathematics——

Patience was the real qualification for teaching.

And I am sure it was sorely tried.

Patience is required in this business too. The Minister said that the Government will hold 45 per cent of shares in the company, which leave 55 per cent for someone else. The Minister has not said exactly how the other 55 per cent will be distributed between private investors, growers and the employees. The second part of my amendment stipulates — again the Minister has not dealt with the point — that 15 per cent should be divided between growers and employees. He has not given a figure in that regard. Will his 45 per cent holding be partly given to the growers and the employees, leaving the remainder for the private investors? That is what we have been trying to elicit from the Minister but he has totally avoided it since we started to debate this amendment over an hour and a half ago. If the Minister said that he intended to privatise the company because he intended to make 55 per cent of the shares available to the private sector we would all know where we stood. A holding of 51 per cent means that it will be in public ownership although part privatised. If the figure is 45 per cent the Minister should accept that it is total privatisation because the control of the company will be in the hands of the 55 per cent equity shareholders. If the Minister accepts this amendment, then I will know that he introduced a Bill dealing with part privatisation. However, he has not admitted that is what he is trying to achieve.

I understand that, on the one hand, he has the pressures of the chairman and certain directors in the company telling him that the flotation of this company on the Stock Exchange — of less than 51 per cent of the shares — will certainly not attract the investors which they would like to attract and that he should be careful not to admit in this House that he will retain control over more than 50 per cent of the shares. This is the nub of the amendment. Will the Minister keep control of the company? Obviously, from what he has done in the Bill, he is saying he will not. He will justify that to the institutional investors, investment banks and other people who deal with the Stock Exchange and who will float this company when the Bill is passed. The Minister will then tell the workers and the growers that he has made arrangements for them and that he will let them take a certain amount of equity in the company, make shares available at a preferential rate and supply loans to buy them. However, what the Minister has been trying to avoid saying for the past two hours is that he will sell more than 50 per cent of the company. We are entitled to know exactly what he will do because, it is in the interest of the nation, of the food industry and of employment in the company, because if the Minister gets away with it another Minister will do the same in relation to one of the other State companies. Will the Minister give us a breakdown of what he is doing with these shares? How much is he retaining for the growers and employees? Will it be part of the 45 per cent or in addition to it? Has he a figure in mind?

As the Minister is sympathetic to the proposal I put forward, will he give a definite commitment in relation to it and quantify it?

I will not be able to deal with all the points in one minute. I will give a commitment to Deputy Lowry that I will take up his proposal with the company. However, I cannot quantify it at present. The matter, obviously, is one which I will pursue. In reply to Deputy Kavanagh, the shares of the workers and the beet growers will be in addition to the 45 per cent. The amount envisaged is the subject of consultation and that is why I did not want to go into detail. In case somebody says I am trying to hold back, it will be 10 per cent extra, which means 55 per cent which will not be available on the open market. The special share, which surfaced during the course of the discussion, will be discussed later and I do not want to go into detail about it now because many of the comments and observations — particularly by Deputy Rabbitte — in terms of control will be dealt with then. The special share which I, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, will hold will be in addition to those. I will deal with the special share in full when we come to it in the legislation.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share