Private Members' Business. - Sugar Bill, 1990: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage. – Dáil Éireann (26th Dáil) – Wednesday, 13 Mar 1991

Private Members' Business. - Sugar Bill, 1990: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1b:

In page 4, line 4, after "Company" to insert "other than the special share".

—Deputy Sherlock.

Mr. Ferris

Before Private Members' time we were debating the necessity for this amendment. The Minister of State questioned Deputy Sherlock's tabling this amendment. I would remind the Minister that it was on the insistence of Deputies Kavanagh and Sherlock that the Minister put in an amendment to section 2 which gives the Minister statutory obligation to acquire this special share. In the meantime the Minister had to get an opinion from the Attorney General on whether it was necessary to amend section 4, as Deputy Sherlock is proposing. There should, therefore, be no dispute about the legitimacy of accepting this amendment or any question of Deputy O'Keeffe rubbishing the idea of it being necessary. The implication seems to be that we pass this Bill immediately because the Stock Exchange are waiting out there for all sorts of great things.

Unfortunately, in my constituency there is little interest in the Sugar Company following the Government's decision to close the sugar factory in Thurles. My constituents have given up hope in Fianna Fáil's commitment to the concept of the public service developing the sugar industry or any of the allied agricultural/food industries. The Government have managed to get through this House so far the principle of the privatisation of what was a very successful and efficient semi-State body which protected the sugar industry. After long debate it was agreed that this special provision, which was agreed in principle and is in the memorandum and articles of association, would be written into the legislation and that the Minister would have this golden share to protect not just the sugar industry but the whole concept of the sugar quota. Having achieved consensus on that we now want to ensure that the Minister cannot legally dispose of this share. We are delighted that the Minister has this share. It is the only redeeming feature in the privatisation of the Sugar Company. Having given the Minister the opportunity to acquire this share we want to make sure that legally he cannot dispose of it. The Minister wants us to accept the section giving him legal power to sell that special share again. The Attorney General may well have advised the Minister that that is not in accordance with the provisions of section 2. If the Minister is to honour his commitment with regard to the special share he should accept this reasonable amendment of Deputy Sherlock which will mean he cannot dispose of that share on behalf of the nation, something we almost had to force the Minister to put into law to ensure he could acquire it.

This is the only redeeming section of the Bill that will have any credibility with the Houses of the Oireachtas, the public whom we represent, the trade union movement and with Congress, indeed with the social partners. They have insisted that we retain some legal obligation on behalf of the State to protect our quota, something for which we fought dearly in our negotiations for accession to the European Community in 1973. It is a very special privilege but does not protect us from competition. As has been said correctly, we have been subjected to extensive competition over the years.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

There is no problem.

Mr. Ferris

Deputy O'Keeffe says there is no problem. If the Minister is going to concede the amendment I can sit down. I understand the advice given the Minister is not in line with this amendment which is a reasonable one to ensure that of all the privileges the Minister will have, this golden share on behalf of the State will be retained and cannot be disposed of except by legislation. Certainly the wording of section 4 (2) as it stands could be interpreted by anybody as giving the Minister power to dispose of that share.

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it Deputy Sherlock now intends replying to the debate on amendment No. 1b?

Mr. Sherlock

Yes, when answering for the Minister earlier the Minister of State said that, as the Minister had agreed last evening, he would consult with the Attorney General. I am surprised my colleague from Cork has not read out what the Attorney General recommended.

My amendment No. 1b. merely refers to the special share which the Minister, in his amendment, had inserted in section 2. If it is lawful for the Minister to insert an amendment in section 2 to provide for the special share then why is it not agreeable to accept in section 4 (2) the words:

The following provisions shall apply and have effect in respect of all shares of the Holding Company, other than the special share, which are for the time being standing in the name of a nominee for the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture and Food...

That is a reasonable proposal.

We are merely seeking to strengthen the Bill as much as possible in the interests of the State, growers, hauliers and workers. Throughout this debate there appears a great urgency on the part of the Minister and on behalf of the Government, to have this Bill passed as quickly as possible without there being embodied therein conditions such as the proviso that the Minister would not dispose of the special share.

The Minister made a further remark when replying to which it would be more appropriate to refer on my next amendment. The case has been well advanced that if the special share is to play the meaningful role purported then there is no good reason it should not be inserted by way of amendment of section 4 (2).

I will be pressing my amendment. I must repeat how important it is since we are within perhaps one and a half hours of privatising the Irish Sugar Company.

We have no control over the memorandum and articles of assocation of the holding company. We have control only over, and will be answerable for, the legislation we enact here.

I ask the Minister to reconsider accepting my amendment, to come some way to meeting our demands, those of the workers and all concerned on this important issue.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 63.

Tá

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

Níl

Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Aylward, Liam.
Barrett, Michael.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John (Wexford).
Burke, Raphael P.
Calleary, Seán.
Callely, Ivor.
Clohessy, Peadar.
Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
Cowen, Brian.
Daly, Brendan.
Davern, Noel.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
de Valera, Síle.
Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.
Fahey, Jackie.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Flood, Chris.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Harney, Mary.
Hillery, Brian.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelly, Laurence.
Kirk, Séamus.
Lawlor, Liam.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Lyons, Denis.
Martin, Micheál.
McDaid, Jim.
McEllistrim, Tom.
Morley, Robert.
Nolan, M. J.
Noonan, Michael J.
(Limerick West).
O'Connell, John.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Toole, Martin Joe.
Power, Seán.
Quill, Máirín.
Smith, Michael.
Stafford, John.
Treacy, Noel.
Tunney, Jim.
Woods, Michael.
Wyse, Pearse.

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

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Sherlock

I move amendment No. 1c:

In page 4, to delete lines 12 to 15.

On a previous amendment we discussed the inclusion of a provision which would ensure that the Minister could not dispose of his special share in the company. Section 4 (2) provides that:

(a) it shall be lawful—

(i) for the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture and Food to transfer all or any of the said shares to another person selected by the Minister concerned to hold as his nominee the shares transferred;

Section 4 (2) (a) (ii), which is the most contentious provision, provides that it shall be lawful:

(ii) for the Minister to direct a nominee to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of all or any of the shares of the Holding Company for the time being vested in him as such nominee;

When he was replying, the Minister of State said that the reference to the Minister was just a technical point. We do not want any loopholes in the Bill due to our failure to deal with technical points. As section 4 (2) (a) (i) provides that it shall be lawful for the Minister or the Minister for Agriculture and Food to transfer all or any of the said shares to another person selected by the Minister concerned to hold as his nominee the shares so transferred, it is imperative that we strengthen the legislation by deleting section 4 (2) (a) (ii).

I do not want to be presumptuous but if the legislation is challenged in the future there are loopholes in it which could be exploited. We want to enact watertight legislation. The majority of the shares in the company — 55 per cent — will be held by private interests. I have every reason to believe that these shares will be an attractive proposition for investors. This could give rise to the possibility of further shares being disposed of in the future, meaning that the State would lose control of the company.

Mr. Kavanagh

If amendments in my name and in the name of Deputy Sherlock had been accepted earlier, it would have been necessary to delete paragraph (ii). However, the Minister has steadfastly refused to accept our amendments. As the purpose of this Bill is to privatise the Sugar Company, I suppose it is necessary to include this provision. However, as in theory I am not in favour of this provision I support Deputy Sherlock's amendment.

Mr. Garland

As someone who represents a party who totally oppose the partial or total privatisation of the Irish Sugar Company, it is my happy duty to support Deputy Sherlock's amendment.

Mr. Walsh

This amendment is not acceptable as it would take away the power of the Minister for Finance to direct his nominee to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of all or any of the shares of the holding company. This is a flexibility which the Minister for Finance wishes to retain. The Minister for Finance has given an undertaking in his prospectus that he will not dispose of further shares for at least two years.

Mr. Sherlock

The Minister of State's statement that my amendment would take away the power of the Minister for Finance to dispose of all the shares in the company only strengthens my argument. We want to enact legislation which will ensure that there will be as much State involvement as possible in this company. We are talking about important issues such as our sugar quota and the jobs of workers in the sugar industry, the food industry and the other subsidiary industries we have spoken about. The Minister may at some time in the future have to seek the Attorney General's advice on the issues referred to in our amendments. He made no case for not accepting my amendment which proposes the deletion of section 2 (4) (a) (ii).

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Sherlock

I move amendment No. 1d:

In page 5, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

"5.—(1) The Holding Company shall reserve three positions of the non-Executive Directorship on the Board of Directors for the purpose of the election of employees to fill the reserved positions. The aforesaid election shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures specified in subsection (2).

(2) The election shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted in the manner which applied heretofore within Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. and in accordance with the terms of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, as amended, save as herein provided.".

This amendment is different from the amendment I put down on Committee Stage. We were all delighted when legislation was enacted some years ago which gave workers the right to sit on the boards of semi-State bodies. I do not know how many members are entitled to sit on such boards but they have been very effective. Have the worker directors on the board of the Irish Sugar Company done any harm? They have not. They did a lot of good work in their dealings with the board, the supreme governing body, management and the workforce at local level. This is what is meant by worker participation. For far too long workers on the factory floor were denied such representation. Clearly they will ask the question: did their contribution mean anything to the employers?

The election of worker directors to the boards of companies meant that workers had an immediate platform through which they could make their case. They felt that whatever proposals, sometimes very good proposals, and new ideas they had for the company would be taken on board. That certainly has been the experience of worker directors. Why then should it not be acceptable to have worker directors on the board of the new holding company?

We should remember that what we are talking about is floating the shares of the Irish Sugar Company on the stock market, and that the majority shareholding be held by private enterprise. That certainly is the bottom line on this question. It is very desirable that the democratic rights of workers to be elected to the board be provided for in the legislation. Unless that is done we might as well throw our hat at it. Once this legislation is enacted there will be no structure for participation by workers.

The Sugar Company were a great example of this because even at local level there were many committees that were active and played a meaningful role in the interests of workers. That is very much part of the whole structure and I am sure that was the motive behind the introduction of such legislation in the first instance. There was a need for it and when it was seen to be effective it was extended to other companies.

This is a reasonable amendment. We thought out this matter and are proposing that there be three worker directors in the company. The factories in Carlow and Mallow are the mainstay of the company. There is the food division in Thurles and other subsidiaries which are linked with the main company. There is also the staff association, whether it be at national level or in the different divisions, and consideration should be given to whether the staff association are also entitled to representation. This is why in the amendment we seek to reserve three positions on the non-executive directorship, and that is quite reasonable.

I ask the Minister not to be afraid to be flexible. There should be no fear that if worker director participation is introduced in this legislation prospective investors will shy away. Why should they? The new concept is to have more involvement by workers. After all they are the people on whom the employer must rely. The present management of the Sugar Company will say they have had the benefit of that concept. I ask the Minister to consider accepting this amendment. It would at least go some way towards reassuring the workers, and others, that they will have a say at board level. The Minister should reserve at least three positions on the board for worker directors.

Mr. Kavanagh

We proposed that there be four worker directors on the board and that there be two worker directors. Fine Gael proposed that there be one, and I have to give Deputy Sherlock every credit for now proposing that there be three. In the absence of the Minister I am sure his instructions to the two Ministers of State were very clear, that they must not stray one line, one syllable or one comma from what has been agreed already. Therefore, it is more in hope than expectation that I rise to support the proposal that there be three worker directors in this company.

Nevertheless this gives me the opportunity to say that I was proud to be a member of a party in a Government that introduced the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977. That was one of the greatest movements in the Dáil towards worker democracy and it saddens me to see it being reversed to some extent in this Bill. In the course of the next year or so there will be other Bills which will privatise semi-State companies on whose boards worker directors have been consistent in their high performance. The only companies that will come before us for privatisation are those measured by profit rather than by loss, irrespective of the social improvements and social commitments in other companies that may not make profits, companies such as Bord na Móna or CIE.

There has been no move to introduce a Bill such as this to privatise B & I. They are being sold off like something that is worn out and sent to the scrap yard. They do not rate getting into the auction as is happening with this company. Instead of having more worker directors in the future there will be fewer under the Government. No attempt has been made by the Department of Labour to encourage worker directors at any level in private enterprise. That was one of the matters considered in 1983, 1984 and later, but that idea seems to have died. The idea of a worker director on the board of a private company seems now to spell disaster for that company as far as stocks and shares are concerned. One of the reasons Deputy Sherlock's and my amendments, as well as an earlier amendment from Deputy Sherlock, are not acceptable is simply that flotation of this company will not allow shares to be retained by worker directors or members of trade unions. That will not happen under this Bill. It is very sad that even at this stage not one concession of significance is being given to the workers in this company. In a last desperate stand, we support this amendment.

Mr. Deasy

This is an extraordinarily important Bill when one looks at it from the economic or the political angle. Ideologically there are major divisions in this House between the parties of the left, the parties of the centre and the parties of the right, and that is as politics should be. What annoys me very intensely is that the Minister is not in the House for the concluding Stages of this debate. As I have said, this is very important legislation. It is a watershed in that this is the first time a State company are being passed into private ownership. As everybody in the House knows I have no inhibitions about the use of the word privatised. The Minister is fudging and fiddling with the words "semi-private" and all sorts of terminology but the word should be "privatisation". This is a major issue and a major break.

There is only one reason for excusing the Minister for not attending the House, that is, if he was in Europe negotiating a price package or involved in the reform of CAP or the GATT negotiations. I have seen the Minister walk in here every 20 minutes or so to vote, so he is in the precincts of the House. He should be here now because it is a massively important Bill and I do not think any Member of the Opposition parties should be ignored to this extent. Their points of view are valid even if the Minister does not agree with them. Because of the importance of this legislation the Minister should be here to answer questions. If he cannot accede to the requests of Deputies he should at least explain why. I do not mean to offend the Ministers of State, Deputy Walsh or Deputy Kirk, they are two fine people, but I am sure they take the point. It is gross discourtesy which should not be tolerated. I should like to have my remarks conveyed to the Minister.

This Bill will conclude in an hour. I asked a simple question today to which I did not get a reply. I asked how the board which will take over — if this Bill is passed — will be constituted. From whom will those people be chosen? I did not get an answer. I wanted to know if the present board will continue for a certain fixed period, will some of the present board continue for a period or will additional people be nominated to the board by the Minister. It is a very simple question and we are entitled to the answer. I do not want to see a crowd of political hacks running the company for an initial period of one year or more. I should like the Minister to come in here to tell us who will run the company until such time as the shareholders have an AGM and democratically decide who they would like to run it. In the interim it obviously has to be people who will be nominated by the Government, most likely by the Minister. Will the Ministers of State ask the Minister to come in here to try to answer that simple question? It is shockingly discourteous of the Minister not to be here for the concluding Stages of this Bill.

Mr. Garland

I listened very carefully to Deputy Deasy and, while I do not want to take away from the important points he made, I am most disappointed that he did not address the amendment, which is not about the total constitution of the board of directors, but about whether there should be worker directors on the board of this company. That is what we are talking about and it is a very important matter.

We know, from Committee Stage of the Bill, that Deputy Deasy put down an amendment suggesting one worker director; Deputy Kavanagh proposed two worker directors and Deputy Sherlock proposed four. I assume that, as Deputy Deasy will not get another opportunity to speak on this amendment, he will support it because he clearly supports the principle of worker directors on the boards of quoted companies, privately owned companies, which is a very good thing. It might represent a breakthrough in the way we do things in regard to companies; it is a very progressive step.

The massive Companies Bill went through the Dáil recently but it did not redress a major problem which arises in all company legislation; even though the Bill was very long there was nothing in it to protect the rights of the workers. Company law is totally geared to protecting the rights of the shareholders but there is nothing about protecting the rights of the workers or indeed the consumers — this is a great defect in our company law — nor are there provisions in our company law for the appointment of worker directors to large privately or publicly owned companies, their size is irrelevant.

We now have an opportunity for the State to have the right to call the shots. This was a State company which it is now proposed to privatise. This is a unique opportunity for the State to set down the parameters of the type of company which it would like to have and which could be a model for all large, privately owned companies. There is a terribly important principle here. Perhaps the Minister could compromise and allow for two worker directors. Let us have a little give in this regard; I am sure Deputy Sherlock would be quite happy with two worker directors. I know Deputy Kavanagh would be happy with two and I am sure the same applies to Deputy Deasy. I would also be happy, we would all be happy, except the Government Party. Will the Minister give serious consideration to accepting this amendment with the possible exception of putting in "two" instead of "three" worker directors?

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

This amendment is being glamorised and exaggerated because the people who tabled it are well aware that we do not have worker directors in the private sector.

Mr. Sherlock

There is always a first time.

Mr. Kavanagh

Partial privatisation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What attraction has Deputy O'Keeffe that having spoken about ten words two other Deputies want to help him?

Mr. Kavanagh

He is a nice fellow.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Keeffe is entitled to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Irish Sugar Company will have worker directors as we have seen in NET. The holding company will be a private one on the stock market. There was a lot of exaggerated comment about what I said about the Stock Exchange this evening by Deputy Ferris. The stock market gives the public the right to participate and is an even-handed way of making an investment. Every citizen has the right to purchase shares in the company because they will be on offer to the public. It is the fairest and most even-handed way of giving our citizens the right to invest in that very successful company which will be more successful in the years ahead.

The workers are being granted something in the region of 4 per cent of the equity. They have also got a further concession, I will quote from the Irish Farmers' Journal of last week in that regard:

The company's employee offer includes the free share offer of £250 in addition to discounted shares at 20 per cent of the offer price, at a rate of one share per £9 of pensionable earnings on April 5, 1990 or a maximum number of 500 shares. Employees will also be able to benefit from a 10 per cent interest rate finance scheme to purchase the shares, payable over 10 years. Employees will also have an option to purchase excess shares allocated to employees but not taken up, but employees will have to finance these shares independently.

That is a major breakthrough which we should welcome instead of trying to cast aspersions on partial privatisation.

Mr. Sherlock

The workers have rejected that.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Deputy is out of touch.

Mr. Sherlock

They have a 39 hour week.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Who gave them that? This Government. No doubt Deputy Sherlock would like to see Cuban sugar coming in here.

Mr. Gilmore

We know where to make it.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I would like to refer to the remuneration of directors which is very relevant. I am convinced that directors of companies are not properly remunerated for the time they give. We are looking for the best in a highly technological world where big finance is involved. I have sat on the boards of companies when Deputy Sherlock was a trade union representative on the other side. Directors are not properly remunerated and many semi-State boards have failed for that reason. The job of a company director is very difficult especially in the context of the new Companies Act. Major responsibility falls on the shoulders of directors today. They can be responsible and liable for decisions they may not understand fully. They have to have their briefs properly compiled and they should be properly compensated.

I hope to see a good mix of directors on this new board, and I have no doubt that will be so — business people, people who have an interest in the workforce, people in the financial world and people from the company management. In recent years there has been a new scene — chief executives and executive chairmen on the boards. I hope this is a change for the better. Quite a wide selection of people are capable and competent to serve on the board of any company in the private and semi-State sectors. In recent times this Government have taken an initiative in appointing many of those very successful business people to the boards of semi-State companies. It is the right of the shareholders at the annual general meeting to nominate directors to a private company. That has been the precedent under company law.

I appeal to the Members on the other side not to push this amendment or to exaggerate as they are doing. I have no fear for the workforce of the Sugar Company in the new situation. The right is there to purchase the shares on the stock market and every citizen, worker and grower can do that and I hope they will take up their allocation. In the past, allocations have been on offer to workers and farmers but have not been taken up. I have no problem with this amendment and I have no doubt that my Minister is in full agreement with what I am saying, and has as much sympathy for the workers as Deputies on the other side of the House.

Mr. Sherlock

It is taking from workers what they already have.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

We in Fianna Fáil have always introduced social type legislation and Deputy Sherlock knows that and agrees with much of what we do.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Let them come and join us.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

They are welcome but they would want to be more selective in their choice of words in that area because what they are saying is not for the good of the company.

Mr. Gilmore

I am delighted to see Deputy Deasy's contribution had the desired result of enticing the Minister back into the House. During the Minister's very entertaining contributions in the past two days I was interested to hear him berate Deputy Sherlock for allegedly in some way being at odds with the trade union movement. I was also interested to hear the Minister representing himself as being hand in glove with the trade union movement and a friend of the worker. His position on this amendment does not appear to square with that.

The principle of worker participation has been established in this State for quite some time. Employees in the Sugar Company have had the right to elect directors for the past 13 years. There has been a great deal of talk at Government level about extending the worker participation idea in the public sector and tentative suggestions of it being extended into the private sector. Many years ago the Irish Productivity Centre were commissioned to produce ideas on how the principle of worker participation could be extended into the private sector. Here, as Deputy Deasy correctly identified, we have legislation to privatise the Sugar Company and part and parcel of that legislation is effectively to abolish the right that employees had to a say on the board who make the decisions that affect them.

I am curious as to how the Minister is going to square this with the Programme for Economic and Social Progress which has been vaunted and greatly praised in this House when it was debated here a short time ago. On pages 84 and 85 of that document are very interesting comments on the principle of worker participation. I quote:

Employee participation is of benefit to both the enterprise and its employees.

Indeed it is.

The main ingredient in the success of the Programme for National Recovery has been the co-operative and partnership approach of the participating bodies. It is important that this social consensus at national level is translated into industrial relations practices and procedures at company level.

There is no sign of this social consensus in this legislation or of any attempt at social consensus on the board of this new holding company. The programme goes on to talk about worker participation legislation being extended to the rest of the public sector and even about discussions having been held between Congress and the FIE under the Employer-Labour Conference on the question of the development of worker participation in the private sector and anticipates a joint declaration on employee involvement in the private sector.

Many companies in the private sector have already taken on board the idea of employees' involvement on their boards of directors and in many other respects. I suggest that the Government's position on this matter is out of step both with the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and with good practice in the private sector. Here was an opportunity for the Government to legislate for worker participation in what will now become the privatised Sugar Company. There would have been nothing wrong with that. It would have been extending rights which workers have already enjoyed.

Mr. Sherlock

A facsimile.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It will continue to exist and worker-directors will still be elected to Siúicre Éireann as they have been up to this moment. Whether or not people accept that is not an issue for me. My business is to state the facts and I have no trouble in reconciling that fact with the question I was asked, because the workers will enjoy precisely the same rights.

We have been told that there is inconsistency on the part of the Government who have put together with the social partners the Programme for Economic and Social Progress following on the Programme for National Recovery. The workers, through their trade union representatives, have made a vital contribution to that programme and to the success we have enjoyed since. It was not easy to take difficult decisions to prevent the economy getting into further financial difficulties, to control borrowing and reduce Government expenditure. It was not easy for employers, the Government and trade unionists. A degree of courage and conviction emerged from the trade union movement; they have been the pivot of what has happened in the development of this economy over the last few years. I am glad that the partnership which is a feature of what has emerged over the last four years will be reflected in Siúicre Éireann and on the board of the holding company.

If I appeared impatient during the course of this debate it was because of the implication that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions were not adequately representing the interests of the workers, that the agreement they entered into was null and void and not worth the paper it was written on. That is over now. I have made my decision.

Deputy Deasy asked about the general composition of the board. It will be a board based on partnership, a partnership of the interests that have built up this company, and with the confidence to build up a new dynamic in the future, in the markets, competing with the best and beating the best. That was not a feature because the company were not trading internationally in the way we would like to see them trading. Now the opportunity has been given to them to trade internationally. The holding board will be a nine member board. There will be a chairman, three executives, one representative of the interests of the workers, one representative of the interests of beet growers and three others. The House will appreciate they will have to be seen to be people of outstanding ability and professional qualification in this competitive international environment. The board will be based on partnership and that will be the kernel of the programme they will pursue.

The Minister for Finance, not the Minister for Agriculture and Food, will appoint the first board. The role of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, amongst other things, will be to hold the golden share and protect the assets of the company, particularly the core asset, the quota. The Minister for Finance and I are satisfied with the arrangements for appointing the board. We are conscious of the need for a strong and experienced board and of the weight given by investing institutions to a good well balanced board. In appointing the initial board due account will be taken of the indications given to me. The correct signals needed to run the company commercially will be given internationally and nationally to institutions and investors, private and otherwise, through the composition of the board. The board, after their first appointment by the Minister for Finance, will be subject to the normal procedures for re-election and reappointment that apply to any other company.

The memorandum and articles of association about which some play was made last night, are standard articles of association, the sort that can be drawn at any time from the Companies Office. The only difference relates to the amount of equity which varies from company to company and matters like that. The chairman, and the managing director, are the only people who will not be subject to retirement by rotation. It was suggested that I was trying to conceal from the House the memorandum and articles of association. I did nothing of the kind. I pointed out clearly that because the legal framework would not be in place until this Bill was passed into law, the articles of association did not have binding legal effect and that all we have at this point are draft articles of association that have no binding effect. It has not been the practice to accompany any legislation with something that is not legally binding. I agreed, without reservation, for the information of the House, to make the memorandum and articles of association available in the Library. Despite that Deputy Sherlock today tried to make some play of the articles of association, but I honestly do not know what he was trying to imply. The memorandum and articles of association are available for everybody to see and the Deputy had a copy in front of him while trying to imply that we were somehow holding back information which was available by virtue of the arrangement I made in response to requests from the House. What else could one do? I hope I have made it clear that nothing has been concealed and that the board will be representative, dynamic and capable of realising their full potential.

I do not think the management or workers of the Sugar Company or the beet growers wanted to see the pattern of recent years continue given that they found themselves constrained by virtue of the fact that they were totally dependent on the State. As a result, levels of employment fell in Thurles, Tuam and so on. Who wanted to see this trend continue? I recall when I first discussed this issue with the unions about two years ago — and there was a good deal of straight talking — I asked which would be better for workers to maintain the old structures at the expense of employment or to put a new, dynamic and vigorous structure in place which could lead to an increase in employment.

In anticipation of this, the Sugar Company have taken the acquisitions trail — they have acquired groups such as Odlums and got involved in areas in which I was very anxious to see them long ago. It is obvious that they have the determination and I hope the board will direct a very dynamic policy and, when we review the progress made five years from now we will be able to report that the situation has changed dramatically and employment has increased rather than decreased which is what has been happening in recent years. I also hope we will be able to report on new developments in new outlets. That is the reason I am satisfied about the composition of the board although others may not be so satisfied. I do not know if they came into the House with an open mind but I doubt if they can be satisfied.

Mr. Sherlock

I am in touch with many of those subsidiary companies and it is clear that they have no say. It is the board, located at Earlsfort Terrace, who make the decision, at least until the new holding company are established — I do not know where their headquarters will be located.

When Deputy Deasy raised the constitution of the board the Minister seemed to give the information in bits and pieces. Why does he not come out and say that they have already decided who will be on the board, having regard to the fact that he has already stated that they will be a good board and that he has the utmost confidence in them? It should be remembered that the Minister and the Government are denying workers the right to a seat on the board which they were granted under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act.

Given that the Minister has ignored every plea to strengthen the legislation in the interests of all concerned, I certainly will be pressing this matter to a vote and I hope we will be given the opportunity to test the Minister. I do not know if Deputy Kavanagh intends pressing his amendment but I would be very interested to know if the Minister will be prepared to insert the details of the agreement — which he has relied upon so much — reached with the unions.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 63.

Tá

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

Níl

Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Aylward, Liam.
Barrett, Michael.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John (Wexford).
Burke, Raphael P.
Calleary, Seán.
Callely, Ivor.
Clohessy, Peadar.
Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
Cowen, Brian.
Daly, Brendan.
Davern, Noel.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
de Valera, Síle.
Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.
Fahey, Jackie.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Flood, Chris.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Harney, Mary.
Hillery, Brian.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelly, Laurence.
Kirk, Séamus.
Lawlor, Liam.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Lyons, Denis.
Martin, Micheál.
McDaid, Jim.
McEllistrim, Tom.
Molloy, Robert.
Nolan, M. J.
Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
O'Connell, John.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Toole, Martin Joe.
Power, Seán.
Quill, Máirín.
Smith, Michael.
Stafford, John.
Treacy, Noel.
Tunney, Jim.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Woods, Michael.
Wyse, Pearse.

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

Amendment declared lost.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 63.

Tá

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

Níl

Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Aylward, Liam.
Barrett, Michael.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John (Wexford).
Burke, Raphael P.
Calleary, Seán.
Callely, Ivor.
Clohessy, Peadar.
Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
Cowen, Brian.
Daly, Brendan.
Davern, Noel.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
de Valera, Síle.
Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.
Fahey, Jackie.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Flood, Chris.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Harney, Mary.
Hillery, Brian.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelly, Laurence.
Kirk, Séamus.
Lawlor, Liam.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Lyons, Denis.
Martin, Micheál.
McDaid, Jim.
McEllistrim, Tom.
Molloy, Robert.
Nolan, M.J.
Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
O'Connell, John.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Toole, Martin Joe.
Power, Seán.
Quill, Máirín.
Smith, Michael.
Stafford, John.
Treacy, Noel.
Tunney, Jim.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Woods, Michael.
Wyse, Pearse.

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

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am now required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 92; Níl, 24.

Tá

Ahearn, Therese.
Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Aylward, Liam.
Barrett, Michael.
Belton, Louis J.
Bradford, Paul.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Browne, John (Wexford).
Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Raphael P.
Calleary, Seán.
Callely, Ivor.
Fennell, Nuala.
Finucane, Michael.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Flanagan, Charles.
Flood, Chris.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
Harney, Mary.
Harte, Paddy.
Higgins, Jim.
Hillery, Brian.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hogan, Philip.
Hyland, Liam.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelly, Laurence.
Kenny, Enda.
Kirk, Séamus.
Lawlor, Liam.
Lee, Pat.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Lowry, Michael.
Lyons, Denis.
Martin, Micheál.
McCormack, Pádraic.
Clohessy, Peadar.
Connaughton, Paul.
Connor, John.
Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
Cowen, Brian.
Currie, Austin.
Daly, Brendan.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Davern, Noel.
Deasy, Austin.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
de Valera, Síle.
Doyle, Joe.
Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.
Fahey, Jackie.
McDaid, Jim.
McEllistrim, Tom.
McGinley, Dinny.
Molloy, Robert.
Nolan, M.J.
Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
O'Connell, John.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Toole, Martin Joe.
Power, Seán.
Quill, Máirín.
Reynolds, Gerry.
Sheehan, Patrick J.
Smith, Michael.
Stafford, John.
Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Treacy, Noel.
Tunney, Jim.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Woods, Michael.
Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

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

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

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 13 Mar 1991

Private Members' Business. - Sugar Bill, 1990: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1991